Michael Pollan On the Organic Foods vs Conventional Foods Study

There’s been a massive uproar in the blogosphere and the mainstream press over the Stanford University study citing that organic foods contain no more nutritional value than conventionally grown foods.

Michael Pollan, food activist and author of bestsellers The Omnivore’s Dilemma, In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto, and Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual, was recently interviewed on KQED, San Francisco, and had this to say:

Pollan on the results of the Stanford organic food vs conventionally grown food study:

“…this is not new research, it’s a [review of previously conducted research], and I’ve seen the exact same data analyzed in a very different direction. A lot of it depends on how you manage your assumptions and statistical method.“

“I think we’re kind of erecting a straw man and then knocking it down, the straw man being that the whole point of organic food is that it’s more nutritious. The whole point of organic food is that it’s more environmentally sustainable. That’s the stronger and easier case to make.“

Pollan on the study’s conclusion that conventional produce contained significantly more pesticide residue than organic produce:

“If you’re concerned about pesticide residues in your food, you’re much better off buying organic. The study said all these pesticide residues in conventional produce are permissible under EPA rules, [but]… there are questions about whether those levels are okay for children and for pregnant women.“

“There was a very important study, which was mentioned in the meta study, about organophosphates [the basis of many pesticides and herbicides] and the link to various cognitive difficulties in children. This is epidemiological, and it’s very hard to prove cause and effect, but caution would argue for keeping those chemicals out of your body, and organic produce is one way to do this.“

Pollan on the choice between conventionally grown and organically grown food:

“If you’re concerned about nutritional value and taste, you might find that the local food, which is more likely to have been picked when it was ripe, is better. Because any food that’s traveled a few days to get to you or been refrigerated for a long time is going to have diminished nutritional value. That argues for fresh being more important than organic.

“But if you’re concerned about pesticides – let’s say you’re pregnant or have young kids… then you might choose organic, because it will have on balance fewer pesticide residues. You may also be concerned with the welfare of the people picking and the farmers growing your produce, or you may be concerned about soil health — that would argue for organic too.“

Read the entire interview on KQED’s Newsfix blog.