Study: Not much benefit to eating organic food


From the Associated Press:


Update: An article on claims “co-author of Stanford study that bashed organics found to have deep ties to Big Tobacco’s anti-science propaganda.”

Categories: Food/dining media, News
Steve Barnes

Leave a Reply

66 Responses

  1. Sage says:

    I don’t think pesticides actually have a “safe” limit. I’d rather not eat them at all to be honest.

    The only problem with organic is that certain brands have been bought out by bigger corporations. Only a certain percentage of the food has to be “organic” in order for it to be labeled as such by law.

    I know California is trying to pass a measure that would require packages to carry a label saying they had GMO in it, and it is being vehemently fought against just like it was in Vermont when Bernie Sanders tried to get it passed.

  2. Ann says:

    Not terribly surprising.

  3. Greenguy says:

    It is healthier for the overall environment when farmers use organic processes to grow food, especially local non-monocropped farms.

    I also wonder if the researchers looked at heirloom vs. mass-marketed foods, and whether soil content made a difference? If all you’re testing is a traditional beefsteak tomato produced organically or not, I wouldn’t imagine much nutritional difference either.

  4. Bill says:

    Who funded the study Monsanto?

  5. ss20ts says:

    any reduction of pesticides we consume IS a good thing!

  6. Mike says:

    Greenguy is right, it’s an overall good idea to use fewer chemicals. At the end of the day, if you can do it, just having your own garden can be enjoyable and healthy. I also wonder if these Stanford University doctors were writing their findings next to their new pool that some pesticide manufacturer paid for.

  7. Mr. Sunshine says:

    It is clear to me that “organic” has become little more than a branding that helps affluent people feel good about their choices.

  8. Johnmichael says:

    Excuse me, but with less than 5% of food sales reported as ‘organic’ how can the so called ‘extensive study’ draw any reasonable conclusions. The sample size is extremely small. Shame on Stanford.

  9. Cihan says:

    You’re being hyperbolic Sage, and to a degree you are fear-mongering. This is from the USDA website:

    “Products labeled as “100 percent organic” must
    contain (excluding water and salt) only organically
    produced ingredients and processing aids.
    Products labeled “organic” must consist of at least 95
    percent organically produced ingredients (excluding
    water and salt). Any remaining product ingredients
    must consist of nonagricultural substances approved
    on the National List including speciﬁ c non-organically
    produced agricultural products that are not
    commercially available in organic form.”

    Corporation size has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a product gets the USDA organic label (there are of course other organic certs like our local NOFA-NY). USDA certified products labeled organic or 100% organic prohibit the use of GMO crops. This information is not hard to find, so I’m not sure why you’re going about spouting inaccuracy.

    Greenguy: how do you suppose that such a study even be conducted? What type of study would we perform? How would you create rigid definitions of what mass-marketed vs. not-mass-marketed foods? How would you find a sample that consumed enough not-mass-marketed foods that you could even attempt to guess at its effect? Personally I think such a study, even if you could get good samples, would be so full of confounders that results would be inconclusive at best, negative at worst.

  10. LJ says:

    Right on Mr. Sunshine. And they’re suckers to boot.

  11. enough already! says:

    Not mentioned was harmful hormones, antibiotics and additives in non-organic food and the positive effect on the environment that organic farming produces. I believe most people don’t go organic for better taste but choose it for health and environmental reasons.

  12. Dave says:

    Stop confusing us with science, please!! We know what we know, and don’t want anything to get in the way of that.

  13. rob says:

    This is not what the article said at all. From a vitamin standpoint there may not be a different between organic and non-organic. But who wants all those pesticides on their food, and God know what seed companies like Monsanto did to the seed to begin with? This is just a preview of some of the political spin you can expect if Romney and Ryan take the reigns.

  14. T says:

    ” USDA certified products labeled organic or 100% organic prohibit the use of GMO crops.”,8599,1599110,00.html

    Pollen from GMO Crops are getting into Organic crops and the USDA doesn’t really care, so long as the GMO Crops and the Organic crops are seperated. It is not a large amount at this time. But I think people seem to forget while Humans “Care” about which crop is which. A pollinator only cares about flying from flower to flower.

    Another Article

  15. T says:

    Go look up the side effects of Rotenone

    If you think Organic Pesticides are safe.

  16. rob says:

    This is not what the article said at all. From a vitamin standpoint there may not be a difference between organic and non-organic. But who wants all those pesticides on their food, and God know what seed companies like Monsanto did to the seed to begin with? This is just a preview of some of the political spin you can expect if Romney and Ryan take the reigns.

  17. K says:

    Sage has it right, the “organic” label, as regulated by the federal government is unfortunate, at least when coupled with the willingness of many consumers to accept that label without understanding what it means. Many people I meet have the general impression that the terms “made from organic …..”, “organic” and “100% organic” are pretty much interchangeable, but only the latter is in fact supposed to be completely organic. All three categories can show the USDA shield on the package, and use the word organic on one way or another, but the first and second terms cover products that can contain up to 30% and 5%, respectively, non-organic materials. If you seek organic food and haven’t already done so, take a little time, google “organic label requirements” and do a little reading, just so you know what you are getting. The USDA site has a lot of decent info as do many of the Ag colleges.

    Greenguy raises a good point about the soil that plant foods are grown in – this makes a huge difference. As an example that I’ve noted before, soil in most of NY state is highly deficient in selenium, the result being that if you are growing wheat in NY, it is going to produce flour that is deficient in selenium unless you add selenium to either the soil or the flour itself. We raise sheep and have to give them a selenium supplement because our pastures don’t have sufficient selenium in the soil (and selenium content is actually better in the capital region that it is in most of the state).

    I would also point out that this Stanford study which is generating so much attention is a “meta” study – the researchers did not do any original research on actual food themselves, they simply reviewed prior studies on the subject and drew their conclusions based on their statistical analysis of the other studies. This is a valid exercise, but I’ve seen a lot of press presenting it as if the Stanford researchers had done the original research.

  18. GŌSECŌS says:


  19. Woodrow says:

    Look in the organic vegetable section of any grocery store, and you’ll find pitiful-looking vegetables, which are smaller and less-juicy than their non-organic counterparts. I would rather buy the healthy vegetable/fruit and spend some extra time washing it, than pay twice as much for wimpy produce.

    I shop farmer’s markets when I can, but sometimes you’re stuck with what’s in the grocery store, and there organic produce is a losing proposition….imo.

  20. Cihan says:

    K, did you miss what I quoted, directly from the USDA itself?

    “Products labeled “organic” must consist of at least 95
    percent organically produced ingredients (excluding
    water and salt). Any remaining product ingredients
    must consist of nonagricultural substances approved
    on the National List including speciﬁ c non-organically
    produced agricultural products that are not
    commercially available in organic form.”

    I am only talking about organic and 100% organic labels. There is an additional label, that is less strigent, called “made with organic ingredients” which is only partially organic. But those products do not have the USDA organic stamp on them.

  21. Sarah says:

    I would just like to refer everyone to this link and to expose the blatant contradictions in the Stanford study. THE STANFORD STUDY IS BOGUS!!!

  22. Cihan says:



    This statement is only relevant if we assume that the transgenic properties of the GMO plant itself are such that the presence of pollen from a GMO plant in or near a non-GMO plant is somehow directly harmful to human health.

    I think transgenic plants are potentially harmful to the environment in a number of ways, and I think that they can be harmful to human health because the traits crossed into plants are often resistance to a some type of poisonous treatment (Ex. Roundup Ready seeds). As such, the plants being resistant to these chemicals, that enables farmers a less judicious use of such toxic and potentially toxic chemicals, leading to higher chemical residues when you finally get the foodstuffs yourself. HOWEVER, I personally have no reason to believe, and have never seen significant evidence of, GMO plants being harmful to human health merely because they are transgenic.

  23. williepitt says:

    My, Sarah (#21), you are a true believer, aren’t you?

    Seems to me the Stanford study is just fine on its own terms. And I agree with its conclusions.

    Too many people these days seem to be grasping at any straw, legitimate or not, to extend their pitiful lives. We’d all be better off if they died on some reasonable schedule instead. The world’s population is way too high as it is.


  24. K says:

    Calm down there, Cihan. Your post wasn’t even up when I was writing mine. Nothing I said was a reaction to yours.

  25. momof2 says:

    Decreased exposure to pesticides and decreased exposure to antibiotics? Good enough for me. I’ll continue to choose organic.

  26. T says:

    “25.Decreased exposure to pesticides ”

    Actually organic farms generally use more Pesticides than conventional farms, because the pesticides usually only last a couple weeks if that. Also organic farm pesticides go unregulated, unless something has changed.

  27. Ringsghost says:

    But it’s so trendy! And, it makes me feel good about myself.

  28. mike says:

    I have heard that NOFA in most cases takes your word or invoices for fertilizer to be certified organic. I don’t think they test soil. Doesn’t that leave things up in the air? It is what you put in the soil, just like what we put in our bodies.

  29. says:

    There are vegans who eat organically veganny, don’t speed on the highway, won’t drink out of plastic, and use organic products all over their homes, who drop dead from cancer and other diseases every day. Who wouldn’t prefer wild salmon to farmed salmon, but then you have to start worrying about overfishing the waters and ingesting too much mercury! Chillax. Do your best.

  30. Joe says:

    So is Chipotle healthier than Taco Bell?

  31. Hawk says:

    So, not being particularly knowledgeable on organic vs non-organic farming for mass consumption (not our great farmers that sell at our local farmers markets), can someone who knows chime in on the crop yield per acre of organic vs non-organic crops? I would have to think that with all of the poor and hungry people in this world, even if there is a slight chance that you could have some health problems when you are in your later years due to non-organic pesticides, it outweighs the benefits of being able to provide a bountiful supply of affordable produce to the masses and not go hungry in your earlier years. Organic is great if for some reason it makes you feel better and you can afford it but for most of this country it is probably just not an option.

  32. Daniel B. says:

    @Hawk – My understanding is that we don’t have a lack of food to feed the world, but rather distribution problems. It’s the conventional farmers and seed manufacturers who push GMOs that try to simplify the equation down to yields. But it’s not that simple.

    Because it’s also about inputs.

    To get those yields, you need to pay the bioengineers. You don’t get to save seeds. And you need to purchase all the herbicides that work with the transgenic seeds that you’ve only bought the license to produce for the year.

    Plus these practices encourage a monoculture of crops. Now, one can say that’s great, because it encourages specialization which leads to greater efficiencies. But one can also say that’s terrible, because it diminishes bio diversity and opens farmers up for a ton of risk should something go wrong.

    It’s not as simple as organic versus conventional. Some conventional crops are perfectly fine. Onions, for example. You’ll never catch me buying an organic onion. The synthetic pesticide load on those things is tiny.

    Corn, soy and canola? Organic all the way, as these are the big three GMO crops. And damn them all to hell for making me buy organics instead of just labeling the GMOs so I could avoid them without paying the hefty premium for organic. The national organic standars have been horribly diluted over the years. It’s to the point where Eden Organic, one of the first players in the industry recently dropped “Organic” from their name b/c they don’t want to be associated with organics as they are today.

    It’s a sad sad commentary on the state of the food system.

    Whether you buy into organics or not, there are a lot of shenanigans going on with food. Read ingredient labels. Learn where your food is coming from. Ask yourself why some deli MEAT is being labeled gluten-free. Sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics in animal feed is no joke.

    Food companies are putting profits over everything else. And either there is insufficient government regulation or the regulators are underfunded and have no teeth. Given how much regulation exists, I tend to side with the later.

    The bottom line is that not all organic food is created equal. And for those of us who care about these things, not just for our own health, but for the health of the land, the livestock, the honeybees and the watershed, eating responsibly is a lot trickier than simply buying organic.

    Still, sometimes the supermarket organic brand can be the best choice.

  33. Hawk says:

    Daniel B – Thank you for your insight. Definitely food for thought (no pun intended).

  34. Mickey says:

    I wish all the redneck commenters who use their reverse snootiness to look down their noses at the alleged “affluent people feeling good about themselves” the best of luck eating their garbage food. You may all die of cancer some day, or at least deal with the long-term effects of putting poison in your bodies: Darwin’s theory of natural selection applied in the real world. This will be a good thing because it will thin the herd (HA HA!). Honestly, I have never seen more hate on this blog than that employed by the people who attack those of us who are making healthier food choices, sometimes for rather compelling personal reasons. Is it guilt, or just a carry over from your enjoyment of political attack as a blood sport?

  35. LJ says:

    Guilt? That’s a good one Mickey. It’s more like mockery, which I do enjoy. And as this particular study (and likely many more to come) suggests, your food choices aren’t any healthier.

  36. Mickey says:

    Who funded the study? What was the data set? What was the sample size? What confounding variables, if any, were accounted for? What makes you think one study garnering media attention for its counterintuitive conclusions is the final word on the controversy? Do you have any factual, statistical or mathematical basis for your belief, disguised as opinion, that “many more to come” will confirm these conclusions in any way? Didn’t think so.

    I, in turn, mock back people who think jamming their body with toxic chemicals over decades won’t hurt them. For every anecdote you have about people who eat organic food supposedly getting cancer (did they work around toxic substances as a career? Did they smoke? Was there family or genetic history?), I can produce more, including family and friends, who are living proof that sensible and healthy dieting helped them fight cancer. Guess whoever dies first loses this one. Enjoy being a laboratory rat for adulterated food, LJ.

  37. williepitt says:

    Mickey, do you know (please note I said KNOW, for a fact) something we, and the Stanford doctors, don’t know? If so, please share it. Otherwise, I’ll assume you have your own ax to grind.

    Your “hate” comment doesn’t make sense either, except as a personal gripe. I’m sure the vegetarians and vegans reading this blog think they have been afflicted with more hate than your bunch. And probably at least two or three other sets of true believers of various kinds also think that.

  38. LJ says:

    Do you have any of the scientific data you ask me for Mickey? That’s my point. This trend toward eating organic seems to be on a hunch that it is “better” for you. Yes, we are seeing that sensible and healthy eating makes people healthier. But does it have to be organic food?

    I don’t like being ripped off or being sold false claims. Especially when it comes to something as valuable as my health. Think about it. The marketing of this organic stuff is brilliant. Take something EVERYBODY has to consume daily, food, and make people believe that what they are eating now is inferior, or maybe is even making them sick or might kill them. Everybody cares about their or their family’s health. Nobody wants to get sick or die so now they can justify their 2,3 4x’s the price compared to the regular supermarket stuff, having no solid proof for the claims. And people, in fear of being unhealthy, will buy it so as to hedge their bets just in case they’re right.

    I’d be willing to bet that if you want to follow a sensible, healthy diet you could find all you need in the supermarket, and not in the organic section. And if you followed that diet, you would live just as healthy and as long as you would eating the more expensive organic equivalent.

    The cancer rates you mention could very well be from increased exposure to electro-magnetic radiation from staring into TV’s, I-phones and computer screens (like I’m doing now). No proof of that either, but maybe I should develop a screen filter that prevents cancer just like the organic food supposedly does. Sounds like a lot of people would buy it just in case It’s true.

    I assume based on your last post that you gave some thought to eating and buying organic. Doesn’t this study at least make you wonder and give you pause? Why dig your heels in and insist that organic is healthier? Is it because you don’t want accept that you may have been deceived? If your choice to eat organic is for other reasons other than health I can respect that. But on the organic being “healthier” issue I want to see proof. And this study proves otherwise.

    But, if you choose to eat organic food based on what family and friends, bloggers and, most importantly, marketers, tell you, then I have some magic beans to sell you. And they’re “organic” too.

  39. LJ says:


    Good timing. I have a favor to ask. I gather from your posts that you are something close to in your 70′s. I would appreciate it if you would take some time to post for us just what you’ve been told over your years on this earth about food( health related) that ended up being total B.S. and/or completely contradicted. I’m in my 40′s and I can think of quite a few.

  40. williepitt says:

    Good question, LJ (#39). I’ll try to give as good an answer, but memory is somewhat inadequate at age 77.

    Well, let’s see: first, when I was diagnosed at 3 with Type 1 diabetes, it was evident to everyone :-) that I COULDN’T HAVE SUGAR. My mother let that one go down the drain after a year or so, and just started controlling the AMOUNT of sugar. Worked fine.

    After that, I pretty much ignored food dogma for decades & decades. But in those days, there wasn’t nearly as much food dogma around so it was hardly noticeable. And I was always doing mental calculations on amount, which apparently weren’t way off.

    Now, I’m in the clutches of doctors who dictate low cholesterol, low fat, high fiber. I make every effort at the high fiber, and take fiber pills besides. As for fat and cholesterol, I treat them with pills and try not to overdo things too much, too often. But I keep remembering a coworker who was absolutely fanatic about such things and died of cancer at a much younger age than I am now.

    My present attitude: I LOVE food! I’ll eat good stuff any time I can, in reasonable amounts. And it’s worth my living as long as I can keep indulging my love for food. After that stops being true, I don’t give a hoot and I can kick off as fate decrees.

  41. Cihan says:


    What about salt recommendations? Have your doctors fluctuated on those as well over the years?

  42. williepitt says:

    Nope. No salt problem has ever been dumped on me.

    But we try to minimize salt, just because we usually think things taste better if it’s in small quantities.

  43. See Ya says:

    Mickey & others: please don’t try to convince people on this blog that the crap they are eating is poison and that they should stop. You and I know that’s true, but they will never accept it so why waste your time?? It’s too easy to dismiss you and your undesirable facts with a “true believer” label and/or “conspiracy” stuff. Seriously, why do you care? Use your energy to educate your family and friends about healthy eating, don’t bother with strangers.

    Not to mention, this is America – where we are free to put any piece of crap in our bodies that we wish.

  44. williepitt says:

    Conspiracy, “See” (#43)? I don’t see ANYTHING much as a conspiracy. Just a not very successful snow job.

    And when you’re 77 and have had Type 1 for 74 years, you’ll have a right to talk about someone else eating what you idiotically identify as “poison”, “crap” and ekc. ekc.

  45. enough already! says:

    Willie – you don’t mention insulin, A1c or the usual complications of type 1. You are a lucky fellow.

  46. See Ya says:

    Haha how did I forget “snow job”! Again, it doesn’t matter to me what you do with yourself. I don’t wish you any poor health, I just literally couldn’t care less what you eat, so go for it williepitt. Especially at age 77; you’ve earned the right to tell people like me to go to hell.

    I hope you live another 20 babe… and I hope to hell I’m as feisty as you when I’m in my 70′s!

  47. says:

    So many European countries claim a longer life expectancy than we do, the statistics are really interesting. Iceland claims the highest, and they drink like fish. I figure, eat like a French person: indulge in everything, in small portions, made richly and unsparingly, and accompany with wine. Eliminating a food group, like animal protein, seems just as bad to me as having chips and cookies for lunch – I mean, if we just apply logic, we won’t need a medical guidebook to explain how to live long, eat well, look good, and enjoy ourselves while doing it. And potato chips and cookies shouldn’t be banned, just put in their rightful place: a once-in-a-while treat in addition to, as opposed to instead of, healthful, gorgeous meals.

    Sometimes I think the stress people experience deliberating their food choices causes premature death.

  48. williepitt says:

    Insulin? Ya. Four times a day.

    A1c? Ya. At least every six months.

    Complications? Nope; not any important ones.

    Lucky? Why do you say so? Careful; yes. Good genes; yes. But I think I deserve my health; luck has nothing to do with it.

  49. Mickey says:

    Good discussion. Sorry for coming off as too shrill earlier. I am not as inclined as williepitt (thanks for your contributions, btw) to disclose my confidential medical information and lifelong personal habits to online strangers, but I will say that in my youth I was a junk food junkie and as I advance through middle age to old age, I find that eating healthier works for me. I do not buy 100% organic, but I read food labels in the market very carefully and do everything I can within reason to keep chemical pesticides, additives, artificial flavors and colors, and garbage like high fructose corn syrup out of my body, and I am convinced that it is worth spending a bit extra for that. Supermarket chicken is tasteless and has undesirable ingredients in it, so I will purchase free range, antibiotic free, chemical free drumsticks for the price of a pound or two of burger meat because they taste better and don’t have things in them that I don’t want in my body. There are resources all over the internet which indicate which fruits and veggies are high in absorbed pesticide content and which ones fight cancer, and that steers me towards organic. If there are regular supermarket items that won’t hurt me, of course–I get them. No, I won’t spend $20 or more on a slab of bacon, nor will I spend $4. I’ll eat it in a restaurant sparingly. What initially set me off was the reverse food snobbery and stereotyping of people who want to eat healthier. It’s all about being a smart consumer. Yes, someone who falls for the “organic” line uncritically is probably getting ripped off, but behaving like the character in the old Woody Allen movie “Sleeper” who informs Woody, who is reanimated 200 years after the 1970s, that tobacco “is the healthiest thing for your body” isn’t the answer either.

  50. RichS says:

    Understand that Doctors only devote half a semester to the study of nutrition. One scientist that I know has three Phd’s all associated with food metatolism, pharamacology, and biology. He is argubly one of the worlds greatest formulators. Another mutual friend has a Phd in celluar biology. When they tell you the HFCS is dangerous you listen. When they tell you that in the past four decades the useable nutrion available in food has dropped from 80% to less than 20% and you know that the depleted soil and dumbing down of food has taken place, Monsanto has permanently damaged corn and soya products grown in the midwest for consumption, that many foods are sold so that the parts get more money than the whole, you should be thinking. Then you look around you and see the morbidly obese people and the increase in the diseases that people have, and that they are ingesting as many as five and six prescription pills compared to two or three just thirty years ago, you have no choice but to think that something is rotten in Denmark! I read labels and many products I will not use. Why do you think there is a long list of companies spending millions of dollars so that products that are sold in California will not have the label “Contains GMO’s” on it. I’ll tell you why if you still don’t get it: GREED They don’t care about our health, only the almighty dollar! Thanks be to God that I and my family aren’t on that treadmill. We are on Moringa Oleifera by Zija that more than supplies our nutrion so we are not ravenously hungry and maintain health weight easily and naturally without dieting. And we have been able to rid ourselves of almost all presciptions with their lousy side effects. Keep healthy my friends, it is possible. Just remember, you can’t fix stupid and you can’t fix dead, even with duct tape!