What are the nutritional differences between organic and non-organic fruits and vegetables?
How organic produce's nutritional quality compares to non-organic produce has been studied over the past 50 years since the dawn of modern, non-traditional agricultural methods. These methods are now considered conventional. Does this Spark an idea?
History
The Mayo Clinic reports that the question of nutritional content is inconclusive, despite 50 years of research comparing organic and conventionally grown foods. Recent studies reach contradictory findings. A 2007 European Union-funded study found a trend of higher antioxidant levels and 20 to 40 percent greater nutritional value in organic produce, including flavenoids and beta carotene. However, the study did report some variation.
The 2009 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reviewed studies conducted since the 1950s, concluding that "no significant difference" in vitamin and mineral content exists between organic and conventional produce.
Considerations
Economic interests may play a role in studies reaching contradictory conclusions about the significance of nutritional differences found. The 2009 study, for example, advised that marginally higher nutritional value could not justify the cost of organic produce.
Significance
Concerns over the health effects of chemical and pesticide use in modern agriculture have largely driven organic practices. Organic scientists want to determine sources of nutritional differences between organic and conventionally grown crops, however significant or minute. Whether organically or conventionally grown, select fresh, color-rich ---indicative of high-nutrient density --- fruits and vegetables.
Tags: between organic, conventionally grown, nutritional differences, organic produce, 2009 study