Scientists claim that organic foods offer no more vitamin and nutritional value than non-organic foods.
The researchers from Stanford University and The Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System performed nutritional studies on a number of different organic vegetables and meats to examine whether organic foods offer more vitamin and nutritional value.
"People choose to buy organic foods for many different reasons. One of them is perceived health benefits," said Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, who led the new study.
"Our patients, our families ask about, ‘Well, are there health reasons to choose organic food in terms of nutritional content or human health outcomes?'"
The scientists researched by the health of people who regularly consume organic foods and the contents of the foods themselves. Fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, poultry, eggs and milk were all included in the study.
The team found that there was no difference in the amount of vitamins in plant or animal products produced organically and conventionally, only that organic produce contained slightly more phosphorus.
The major difference in the two food types comes when researching the amount of pesticide residue found in the samples. More than one-third of the non-organic produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared with just seven percent found on organic produce - organic chicken and pork was 33 percent less likely to carry antibiotic resistant bacteria than conventionally-produced meat.
For foods to be classed as organic producers must avoid the use of pesticides and fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics - hence the reduced pesticide residue.
For years consumers have made purchases on the assumption that organic is somehow healthier and it seems these studies go someway to dispelling the myth. Maybe consumers choice in the future will be based on how much pesticide has been used in the production of their meat and vegetables.