But maybe not.
A new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine says organics really don’t pack the nutritional punch that most of us believe. It’s an important point, since organics can deliver a blow to your wallet, often costing as much as 50 percent more than non-organics.
The research looked at 273 studies and tried to figure out whether you truly do get a nutritional bang for your buck. Here’s the essence of what they conclude when comparing standard to conventional:
- Vitamins: no difference
- Minerals: no difference
- Protein: no difference
- Fats: little difference (some organics have higher Omega-3 content)
Now how about other issues? Pesticide content isn’t always as great an advantage, as you might assume.
In some cases, organic doesn’t mean “pesticide free” — some organics contained only about 30 percent less. (Others, though, were zero.)
But then again, since we don’t know all we should know about the long-term effects of pesticides, especially when it comes to kids, even 30 percent may be important.
Plus, there is the issue of antibiotics going into feed non-organically. We are being bombarded by antibiotics from a lot of sources.
So, all in all, the issues with organics aren’t as clear-cut as we’d like. Nutritionally they seem to be a wash. But from avoidance of chemicals, they may be better.
Cost? Well, that’s up to you.
Either way, eating organic or non-organic fruits, veggies, dairy, etc. is a choice that’s better than a bag of junk food chips.