Here is an excerpt from the article:
Before reading any actual data, we found ourselves puzzled by the researchers' opening two sentences, and by this journal's selection of the study for publication.
In terms of the actual data, it's important to recognize that no new data was gathered by the Stanford research team, which relied on statistical meta-analysis of previously collected data. This point is important, because we've seen more than ten statistical meta-analyses of organic food data over the past decade or so, and the vast majority of these meta-analyses have found nutritional benefits from organic production in at least a handful of nutrient areas. In the organics section of our website, we describe the overall nutrient benefits of organics as falling into the range of 5-20% percent.
We also explain why this percentage is not higher. For example, we point out that soil quality varies greatly from region to region, and many differences in soil quality cannot be overridden by organic farming practices. We further point out that organic is not the same as sustainable, and that organic foods are not required to be locally grown, grown in their native region, grown in a seasonally appropriate way, or grown in soil that meets specific nutrient standards. Given this context, 5-20% greater overall nutrient benefits from organic versus convention foods makes sense to us, and it seems like a good thing.
This 5-20% range also seems to fit with the data presented by these Stanford researchers. When they looked at nutrient comparisons between organic and non-organic foods, these researchers focused on 14 different nutrients, and came up with the following results:
Study comparisons favoring organic foods: 199
Study comparisons favoring conventional foods: 133
In other words, these Stanford researchers discovered that 199/332 comparisons (60%) favored organic foods, and 133/332 (40%) favored conventional foods, making organic foods were 20% more likely to compare favorably with conventional foods. While this conclusion is not the same as a conclusion of 20% greater nutrient content in organic foods, it is a finding in favor of organic foods with respect to their nutrient content and it is a finding consistent with other meta-analyses that we have seen.
To read the full article, please visit http://whfoods.org/
Mateljan has authored six books, his most recent best seller being, The World’s Healthiest Foods. The over eight-hundred page book has become a reference staple for nutrition conscious individuals world-wide as well as being a book recommended and used by professors at multiple universities.
According to Mateljan, “Thousands who have purchased the book and followed the eating and cooking recommendations have reported significant health improvements including lower cholesterol, resolved blood sugar issues, and weight loss.”
Mateljan invites the world to take advantage of all the free information contained on the George Mateljan Foundation website (www.whfoods.org)
Learn more about George Mateljan at http://www.whfoods.org