Study: Organic versus conventional foods – health comparisons

This is another, inevitably contested, study concluding that organic foods are not safer or healthier than conventional alternatives:

Smith-Spangler C, L Brandeau M L, Hunter G E, Bavinger JC, Pearson M, Eschbach P J, Sundaram V, Shirmer P, Stave C, Olkin I and Bravata D M  (2012). Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review, Ann Intern Med. 4;157(5):348-366

Abstract as follows

Background: The health benefits of organic foods are unclear.
Purpose: To review evidence comparing the health effects of organic and conventional foods.
Data Sources: MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2011), EMBASE, CAB Direct, Agricola, TOXNET, Cochrane Library (January 1966 to May 2009), and bibliographies of retrieved articles.
Study Selection: English-language reports of comparisons of organically and conventionally grown food or of populations consuming these foods.
Data Extraction: 2 independent investigators extracted data on methods, health outcomes, and nutrient and contaminant levels.
Data Synthesis: 17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods met inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the human studies examined clinical outcomes, finding no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection. Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences. All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus; phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant. The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, −37% to −23%]), but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small. Escherichia coli contamination risk did not differ between organic and conventional produce. Bacterial contamination of retail chicken and pork was common but unrelated to farming method. However, the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%]).
Limitation: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.
Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

You can read the paper here.

There was a 2010 UK based systematic review which focused only on the nutrient aspects (rather than food safety, pesticide residues etc) – this came  to a similar conclusion:

• Dangour A, Dodhia S, Hayter A, Aikenhead A, Allen E, Lock K and Uauy R (2009). Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature. Report for the Food Standards Agency, Contract number: PAU221, London, UK.

This meta-analysis, by contrast, came to the conclusion that there were health benefits to be gained from consuming organic foods:

• Brandt K, Leifert C, Sanderson R and Seal C J (2011). Agroecosystem Management and Nutritional Quality of Plant Foods: The Case of Organic Fruits and Vegetables, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, Vol. 30, Iss. 1-2