Nutritional Distinctions between Organic and Non-organic Foods

What is considered organic? Organic foods are grown without the use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, or radiation. And animals that produce meat, eggs, and dairy products do not in-take growth hormones or antibiotics.

Still trying to determine whether you should spend extra bucks for organic food? Just how much are you informed on organic food? There are several debates among organic and conventional foods. Such as whether one or the other is more nutritious, or if they even do vary in their nutritional composition at all. There is also a lot of confusion between the two. Although there is scientific studies and evidence on both sides, there is still not enough research yet conducted in order to satisfy some people. There has just not been a definitive study yet done. This is due to the number of factors involved in comparing conventionally grown and organically grown foods. Variables such as soil type, climate, crop variety, and harvest handling. The decision to choosing organic vs. non-organic food seems to have become a recent “trend” in the U.S. Even though there is hardly any concrete evidence that organic food may be healthier or nutritious, some results express that they may, even just a little bit. Even if it does not make a significant difference. And if organic food is not more nutritious, it may just be a smarter choice. Some experts note that they recommend organic due to concerns of animal welfare, the use of pesticides, and concerns about the environment.

The video presents a great deal of information on organic and non-organic food. The video's purpose is to inform us the results between organic and non-organic nutritional values. It's great how they gathered average persons opinions in it. The part where the male customer claims that he shops organic because he's believing "the guys" (I'm assuming he means scientists or experts) that tell him it is more nutritious. People might not have done much research themselves online, newspapers, or through books. So they just believe what they hear. Not surprisingly, a lot of us just do not have a lab of our own to just simply conduct research on this concern. They claim in the video that there is a small amount of difference between the two. But even though is it not enough to make a difference, the results still express that their nutritional values still vary. I think in the video they only emphasized on fruits and vegetables. They did not mention anything about meat products. From what I have researched, experts suggest that organically raised meat may prevent spread of diseases, such as mad cow disease. The video also gives a little bit of advice to its viewers, which I feel is convenient. It seems like it was an honest study; since they provided advice and were not just trying to persuade people into buying one or the other. It was personally very insightful to watch. 

I have found several articles which claim different assumptions, ideas, and evidence. Some of which state organic is more nutritious, and some which say there is no difference between the two. I decided to show a little bit of both sides.

Significant Quotes

I want to point out something I found very intriguing in the article: "Nutritional Benefits". It is a short, brief article that points out about a couple of benefits organic foods can offer. Something the article claims that stood out to me was: "studies have found organic fruits and veggies to contain, for example, up to 30% more antioxidants, which promote immune and heart health. Research has also shown organic milk to have more omega-3 fatty acids, which the modern diet dangerously lacks, nutritionists tell us".

Numbers really can say a lot. Statistics are one of the best ways to express the differences between organic and non-organic foods. In this case, the statistics show that organic foods may vary nutritious wise. What's really interesting about the quote/sentence is that nutritionists stated those numbers and facts. Since they specialize in nutrition, I pretty much think the nutritionists know what they're talking about; it seems like credible response. But At the same time though, are these nutritionists conducting the experiments themselves? Or just hearing results from other people?

A quote which I felt was significant from the article "Is Organic Food Really More Nutritious?" is: "Organically grown potatoes, for instance, were found to have higher levels of vitamin C than conventionally grown spuds. In fact, half of the studies the BNF reviewed on vegetables found higher levels of vitamin C in organically produced vegetables particularly in dark, leafy greens like chard and spinach—and no studies showed the organics coming in with lower nutrient levels" (1).

I think it's pretty neat how they pointed out how organic foods are not lower in nutrient levels. If it is not true that organic foods do not have more nutrients or are better for you, at least they do not lack in nutrients. From most of what I read from my research, scientists, and experts hardly claim organic food to be lower in nutrients. Normally they say they are higher, but still hardly make a difference. In the YouTube link I provided above, they did mention some vitamins being lower in some foods though. So I think it varies which nutrients and foods.

The article "Is organic better?" claims: "In nutritional composition, they appear similar. So until more evidence-based studies are available, the decision to eat organic food comes down to this: If you want to eat foods produced without chemicals or pesticides, buy organic" (3).

This implies that some persons have concerns about pesticides, such as the development of cancer from by. If you want to be on the safe side, just shop organic. but since their nutritional compositions do not differ, then just buy the cheapest one, if you'd like. If pesticides are not a concern to you, shop for non-organic foods and save yourself some money. Maybe you can also choose whichever you thin tastes better to you. I think it comes down to a matter of preference. My final thought on this is that just eating more natural, less processed foods are going to be better for your body.

The chart above statistically represents the price differences between some organic and non-organic foods. Although organic foods are sometimes said to have a somewhat higher amount of nutrients by some researchers, their price differences between non-organic can be quite ridiculous. Since organic food is hardly proved having higher nutrients than non-organic, then people will begin to question themselves why should they be waste more money on organic foods if their nutritional value is almost the same or tied with conventional foods? Because of the price differences, less people are convinced to buying organic because it's more costly. Since the both have just about the same nutritional value, I personally would go with what is on sale first. If organic food's nutrients were immensely higher than conventional food's, then maybe people would be more encouraged to invest on organic foods.

This video is very informative about the concerns of non-organic foods. It advises to shop organic, not because it may be claimed to have higher nutrients, but because non-organic food has more pesticides and is genetically modified. They are not good in a person's body. The more natural, less-processed food's are, the more ideally better they are for the body; since the concerns of cancer development in non-organic food which contain pesticides. The women in the video expresses that in other countries, there is a certain requirement limit to labeling what is and what is not genetically modified. She mentions that Europe makes a very big deal in labeling their items. One of the few countries which GMO's (Genetically modified foods) is not a concern is the United States, but is becoming more aware of the issue. It is also suggested that labeling can be a positive thing since people should be aware of what they are putting in their bodies.

The chart above shows the differences between the two. I chose this picture because I feel it gives a short, brief visual summary of the distinctions. It allows the viewers to visually see them quicker. Seems like there is also a list that is pretty straight forward