Incomplete Research on Organic vs. Conventionally Grown Foods posted on December 29, 2012 benefits of organic foodjoe dimatteoorganic foodsorganic vs. conventionally grown foods Share this Post Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Plus In a recent article in the Annals of Internal Medicine (2012; 157:348-366), researchers questioned the health benefits of organically grown versus conventionally grown foods. The basically concluded that there was insufficient evidence to say that organically grown foods are healthier. The article states, “Published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.” The conclusion they draw is that chemical and nutrient composition shows no greater enhancement or benefit with organic foods. I disagree with this claim because there is literature to the contrary. But the real issue with conventionally grown foods is the exposure and consumption of pesticides and herbicides. These compounds have estrogenic like activities in our bodies, as well as neurotoxic effects. Furthermore, these chemicals accumulate in our fatty stores because they are lipid or “fat loving” and neurologic. Evidence of this is prevalent in children with ADHD. They show greater body burdens of these neurotoxic chemicals. My opinion is that the real issue is about the adverse consequences conventionally grown food can have on the body, as opposed to focusing solely on comparing the “nutrient” values. This research and conclusion is misleading to the consumer because it does not outline the negative effects of conventionally grown food, rather just focuses on the “nutrient” values.