‘I only buy organic because its better for me’
Maybe so, but perhaps maybe not.
As with everything in health, fitness and nutrition you read and hear a lot of conflicting reports on anything and everything from crunches being bad for you (correctly done, they’re not) to sugar being the devil and you need avoid it all costs (you needn’t). The problem is, in the case of organic food, there is evidence to support both notions that A) it’s better for you and B) it makes no difference (apart from to your wallet).
Consider a 2014 meta-analysis (study of studies) published in the British Journal of Nutrition that found that organic crops — ranging from carrots and broccoli to apples and blueberries — have substantially higher concentrations of a range of antioxidants and other potentially beneficial compounds.
Seems cut and dried, organic is best, remortgage your house and get to the supermarket and stock up asap.
Consider this 2012 meta-analysis from Stanford University who’s lead researcher concluding that ‘after analysing the data, we (the researchers) found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods. No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products. There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a small number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids. Unlike the 2014 study mentioned above these researchers were unable to identify specific fruits & vegetables for which organic appeared the consistently healthier choice.
We’d venture to guess that you don’t need to get this complex with your nutritional choices. Outside of being a top-level athlete you’re probably just trying to eat as well as you can given your budget, life and family.
For what our two cents is worth, for the average person…eating organic may not be worth the cost. If you can afford it, great. If not, no worries.