Stanford University recently came out with a controversial study that concluded that organic foods have no clear health benefits over foods grown using pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, etc. Do you agree?
A much-publicized analysis that appeared in the Sept. 4, 2012 edition of the Annals of Internal Medicine
concluded there is a lack of strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.
I strongly disagree with the way the findings have been characterized in the media -- the reason to choose organic foods is not necessarily nutritional superiority: it is to avoid the residues of pesticides and other agrichemicals used on conventional crops and the hormones and other drugs fed to conventionally raised livestock. SPECIAL: These 5 Things Flush 40 lbs. of Fat Out of Your Body — Read More.
The researchers found that the risk for contamination with pesticide residues was significantly reduced with organic as opposed to conventional produce; in addition, bacteria resistant to multiple antibiotics were more likely to be isolated from conventionally raised chicken and pork products than from organic ones.
Neither pesticides nor antibiotic-resistant bacteria are good for you. Recent headlines notwithstanding, organic foods are better for your health.
-- With Marti LotmanAndrew Weil, M.D., is Founder and Director, Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine at the College of Medicine, University of Arizona, and Director of Integrative Health and Healing, Miraval Resort. He is a pioneer in the field of integrative medicine, which combines conventional medicine with alternative approaches. He received his medical degree from Harvard University. His new book is "True Food: Seasonal, Sustainable, Simple, Pure."