NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Organic produce and meat typically isn't any better for you than conventional varieties when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content, according to a new review of the evidence.
But organic options
may live up to their billing of lowering exposure to pesticide residue
and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, researchers from Stanford University and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System found.
"People choose to
buy organic foods for many different reasons. One of them is perceived
health benefits," said Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, who led the new study.
"Our patients, our families ask about, ‘Well, are there
health reasons to choose organic food in terms of nutritional content
or human health outcomes?'"
To try to answer
that question, she and her colleagues reviewed over 200 studies that
compared either the health of people who ate organic or conventional foods or, more commonly, nutrient and contaminant levels in the foods themselves.
Those included organic and non-organic fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, poultry, eggs and milk.
Many of the studies
didn't specify their standards for what constituted "organic" food -
which can cost as much as twice what conventional food costs - the researchers wrote Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
No comments:
Post a Comment