Viewpoint: ‘If we follow the science, organic food loses its apparent benefits’ — Harvard professor debunks myths about organic products

Organic food, worth more than $75 billion, has long been touted as superior to conventionally grown food, with some studies claiming it has added health properties and can ward off disease.

More than two-thirds of Americans believe these foods, which claim to be grown with fewer pesticides and often cost significantly more than regular food, are healthier.

Dr. However, Robert Paalberg, a professor at the Sustainability Science Program at Harvard University, said evidence suggesting organic food is more nutritious is unreliable and consuming fewer pesticides may not have an impact on health.

“There is no reliable evidence to show that organically grown food is more nutritious or safer to eat,” he said.

“If we follow the science, organic food loses its apparent benefit.”

Dr. Paalberg pointed to a 2012 review from Stanford University that looked at 237 studies on organic food. The researchers found no convincing differences in nutrients or health benefits between organic and conventional foods.

The main difference was that organic foods contained fewer pesticides.

Organic foods still use pesticides, but according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, these are usually limited to natural sources, such as copper and sulfur, while conventional products may use synthetic pesticides.

However, organic farmers still have limited access to 25 synthetic pesticides, while conventional farming can use more than 900.

This is an excerpt. Read the original message here