Houzz Logo Print

Nutritional value studies -- OG vs Non-organic

12 years ago

Why do you think that overviews of studies done by places like Scientific American, the Mayo Clinic, and the U.K Food Standards Agency keep coming up with the conclusion that there is no significant difference in nutritional content between organic and non-organic foods?

Several years ago, the wife of a friend of my husband had come to my house, and after I'd harvested and cooked her a delicious all-garden, all-organic meal, she announced that there was no difference between organic and non organic foods. At the time she still worked in a position high up at the Dept. of Agriculture. I started looking for evidence to prove her wrong, and couldn't find any. Now she is retired (away from the influence?) and she tells me she buys organic whenever she can (I think it's her way of apologizing :) )

So more recently there are folks reviewing the studies and coming to the conclusion that there *are* significant differences, but these are usually organizations that could be interpreted as having a bias (like the Organic Trade Association.)

I mean, c'mon, we've got the Soil Food Web working great in one type of soil, and floundering toward death in the other type of soil, and no body can come up with a clear conclusion? With definitive studies that won't be called into question because of methodology?

Comments (17)