Jon Barron Presents the First Explanation as to Why Organic Products Don’t Always Test Better than Conventional

Recent debate over Stanford’s new organic study from both the conventional and organic food industries as to whether organic food is better for you has created mass consumer confusion. In a just released report, Jon Barron dives deeper into the Stanford study with an analysis that shows why the results were predictable, but the conclusion faulty. Barron’s report will help readers read between the lines on either side.

  • Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail a friend
Although the results of the Stanford organic food study were predictable and accurate within the scope of what they analyzed for, its fundamental conclusion that buying organic isn't worth the price one pays doesn't entirely hold up.

Las Vegas, NV (PRWEB) October 08, 2012

Jon Barron, founder of The Baseline of Health Foundation, recently published a first time report for consumers that explains why studies of organic foods do not always show higher nutrition levels than conventionally grown foods. The goal of the new report is to answer the nagging question families face when purchasing food in today’s economy: “Is organic food better for you.”

Barron’s report is in response to Stanford’s study published in the "Annals of Internal Medicine" that found that organic foods were neither substantially more nutritious nor substantially "cleaner" than non-organic products. Debates from the agriculture industry and the organic industry have left consumers more confused as to whether organic foods are worth the extra cost. Barron analyzed the study, reviewed the arguments from both sides, and concluded that although the results of the Stanford organic food study were predictable and accurate within the scope of what they analyzed for, its fundamental conclusion that buying organic isn't worth the price one pays doesn't entirely hold up.

Barron states in his new report that organic will give you anywhere from decidedly more nutrients to profoundly more nutrients, depending on what you measure, but this does not mean Stanford’s report was inaccurate. Barron’s first explanation dives into the history of the term “organic” and why its current definition has opened the door to many interpretations, creating confusion in the first place. Secondly, the problem with organic food studies is that they focus on those nutrients that are independent of fertilizer.

“Many key nutrients [such as vitamin C and phenols] are assembled from nothing but carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. For those nutrients, whether pesticides are used, or even if organic fertilizer is used, is irrelevant. The plants pull what they need to make these nutrients out of the air and water -- which is equally available to both organic and conventional produce. However, the situation is different when we talk about other nutrients that contain elements [such as selenium and sulfur] not found in air and water and that are also important markers of food value,” states Jon Barron in his report. For those nutrients, how the food is grown matters. If the key elements are not in the fertilizer, they’re not in the food.

Barron shows that tests on organic foods with nutrients such as selenium, zinc, iron, and magnesium will show dramatically different results. He adds, “Basing a study on the antioxidant value of foods measured only by the amount of phenols and vitamin C present provides an extremely misleading picture. This means that just because there is little measurable difference in phenol levels between organic and conventional produce [the focus of the Stanford study], that doesn't mean they have even close to the same antioxidant values, let alone nutrient values. It's all a question of what you choose to measure.”

Barron’s report then explains how the use of pesticides actually causes plants to produce fewer antioxidants and explores the political landscape around organic and why the USDA and Congress may need to reevaluate their criteria and definitions. Jon Barron concludes that an organic apple may not have more vitamin C than a conventionally grown apple. However, if consumers decide to buy organic, at least they know they are getting a product that is generally free of synthetic pesticides, hormones, GMOs, sewage, irradiation, and additives. Find the full report at: http://www.jonbarron.org/natural-health/is-organic-foods-better-pros-cons.

About Jon Barron and The Baseline Of Health® Foundation

Founder and Director of the Baseline of Health® Foundation, Jon Barron has been at the forefront of much of the pioneering work in the study of nutrition and anti-aging for the last 45 years. He is editor and publisher of the Baseline of Health® Newsletter and the Barron Report, which are both read by thousands of doctors, health experts, government health ministers, and nutrition consumers in over 100 countries. He is the author of the acclaimed health book, Lessons from the Miracle Doctors. As the resident health expert, Barron can be heard biweekly on the 1680 AM "Healthy Trends" radio show in LA. He currently serves on the Medical Advisory Board of the prestigious Health Sciences Institute. For more information, visit http://www.jonbarron.org.


Contact

Follow us on: Contact's Facebook Contact's Twitter