Organic food is not more nutritional than conventionally grown food
For[edit | edit source]
- According to a 2012 review of 17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods, "The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods." The article is not open access.
- When the American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed the literature on organic foods in 2012, they found that "current evidence does not support any meaningful nutritional benefits or deficits from eating organic compared with conventionally grown foods, and there are no well-powered human studies that directly demonstrate health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet."
Against[edit | edit source]
- A 2011 literature review found that organic foods had a higher micronutrient content overall than conventionally produced foods.
- A 2014 review found lower concentrations of cadmium, particularly in organically grown grains.
- When evaluating environmental toxins such as heavy metals, the USDA has noted that organically raised chicken may have lower arsenic levels.
See Also[edit | edit source]
- The link between organic food consumption and health remains insufficiently documented in epidemiological studies
- Organic food is no safer to eat than conventionally grown food
Citations[edit | edit source]
- "Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: A systematic review".
- "Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages".
- "Evaluation of the Micronutrient Composition of Plant Foods Produced by Organic and Conventional Agricultural Methods".
- "Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses".
- "Should I Purchase Organic Foods".