Organic food is not healthier, finds study

NewDelhi:Hooked to organic food for its supposed health benefits? Here's some food for thought. In the largest analysis of studies till date on organic food, researchers from Stanford University have said there is "little evidence of healthier benefits from organic food over those grown conventionally". 

    The researchers found no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk. No consistent differences were also seen in the vitamin content of organic products. Only one nutrient—phosphorus—was significantly higher in organic food as compared to conventionally grown produce. 
    The only benefit, found the study published on Tuesday in the medical journal Annals of Internal Medicine, was that consumption of organic food can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure. 
MYTH BUSTED 
Stanford Univ researchers find no difference in nutritional value between organic food and conventionally grown food. 'Little evidence of healthier benefits' too 
No difference in protein, fat, vitamin content in organic and conventional milk. Only more phosphorus in organic foods 
Organic foods are 30% less likely to be contaminated with pesticides but they are not 100% pesticide free 'Only aim to educate, not discourage people' 
New Delhi: A team of researchers from Stanford University found only one benefit in consuming organic food. "Organic produce was 30% less likely to be contaminated with pesticides than conventional fruits and vegetables," said the study published in Annals of Internal Medicine. It however, added that organic foods are not necessarily 100% free of pesticides. 
    Also, organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibioticresistant bacteria. "There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health," said Dena Bravata, senior author of the study. 
    Dr Ritika Samaddar, chief dietician at Max Hospital, agreed with the finding but said cost was a big factor behind organic food still not being that popular. 
    Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford's Center for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, an instructor in the school's division of general medical disciplines, did the comprehensive meta-analysis. The researchers said their aim was to educate people, not to discourage them from making organic purchases. Times View: Need India-specific study T his study obviously must be taken very seriously given both its scale and the credibility of the institution that has undertaken it. However, it would be dangerous to rush to extrapolate from this to the Indian situation. Patterns of both fertiliser and pesticide consumption in India are entirely different from those in the US or other parts of the developed world. Given the relatively low use of chemicals, it might seem that the one benefit the study has found in the case of organic foods may not apply to India. On the other hand, given the poor regulatory environment here, the risks could actually be higher. Rather than speculating about which of these two possibilities actually is true, it would be best if a similar study were done for food in India.