©iStockphoto.com/monkeybusinessimages

The economy may be lagging, but organic food sales are booming. In 2009, sales of organic food and beverages were up an estimated 5.1 percent over 2008—a grand total of $24.8 billion in sales; organic fruits and vegetables alone increased 11.4 percent compared to 2008. Sales of organic baby food have trended upward as well, with a whopping 21.6 percent increase between 2006 and 2007. It is estimated that by 2012, organic baby food will be a $2.26 billion business.

Parents who give their babies organic foods typically do so because they believe they have higher levels of vitamins and minerals, and lower levels of pesticides and other potentially harmful chemicals. However, many parents question whether organic baby food is really worth the price.

Organic vs. non-organic
“Results actually do show that organic produce tends to be higher in certain nutrients,” says Amy Marlow, RD, MPH, a nutrition advisor at HappyBaby, and co-author of HappyBaby: The Organic Guide to Baby’s First 24 Months. “I will concede, however, that when it comes to some vitamins and minerals, there has not been a consistent finding that organic is more nutritious than conventional.”

Marlow cites a 2008 review suggesting that, over the long haul, organic foods tend to win out. “The researchers looked at 97 studies and compared 236 matched pairs of organic versus conventional crops,” says Marlow. “They found that in 61 percent of the pairs (145), the organic sample was more nutrient-rich, mostly in antioxidants.” What Marlow doesn’t point out is that the review was conducted by the Organic Center, an organization supported by businesses and individuals with a vested interest in organic food production and distribution. That’s not to say that the review is without merit, only that, like all scientific data, the risk of bias must be considered.

A similar analysis was performed in 2009 by a group of British researchers with funding from the Food Standards Agency, Britain’s version of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The researchers compared the nutrient content of conventionally produced crops (non-organic) with those produced organically. Out of 52,471 articles they identified 162 studies—of those, only 55 were of satisfactory (not good but adequate) quality. Eleven nutrients were examined. With the exception of nitrogen and phosphorus—non-organic crops had a higher nitrogen content and organic crops had a higher phosphorus content—the nutrient levels in organic and non-organic foods were the same. The researchers did not measure levels of pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides. Nor did they attempt to look at taste and freshness. Given the lack of good quality data, the authors concluded that more research is needed before the nutrients in organic and non-organic foods can truly be compared. The Lancet, in an editorial response to criticisms of the British study advised its readers to buy organic food—not because it’s more nutritious, but “… do so because it might be fresher and taste better, contains far less chemical residues, and is kinder to farmed animals.”

Organic food and chemicals
For many moms and dads, there is no doubt in their minds that organic foods have lower levels of potentially harmful chemicals compared to conventional foods. But once again, the research is inconsistent.

One survey conducted in New Zealand found that organic products are more likely to contain pesticide residues than products grown conventionally. But that the average pesticide residue level is more likely to be higher in the conventionally grown products.

In contrast, an analysis by the USDA of USDA and other data documenting pesticide residues on fresh vegetables and fruits found that organic produce carries significantly fewer pesticide residues than conventional produce.

A recent study examined urine samples from 23 children ages 3-11 for pesticide residues. Samples were collected each morning for 15 consecutive days. During days 1-3 and 9-15 the children ate a normal diet; during days 4-8, organic foods were substituted for conventional foods. The results, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, showed that immediately after eating the organic foods, the children had significantly lower levels of pesticide residues in their urine; and that the levels remained low until conventionally grown foods were reintroduced.

“For me, this is the main health-related reason to buy organic foods,” says Marlow. “We know for a fact that young children who eat organic foods are exposed to fewer pesticides than children eating conventionally grown foods. We also know that exposure to synthetic pesticides has been linked to negative health outcomes. Further, babies and young children are more susceptible to the health effects of pesticide exposure because of their high percentage of body fat, because they are so rapidly growing, and because they eat more food per pound of body weight than adults.”

The bottom line on organics
Most parents tend to take a cautionary approach, which may explain why organic foods have become so popular with new moms and dads. If you’re on a tight budget, you might want to confine your organic purchases to those fruits and vegetables known to be highly contaminated. The Environmental Working Group publishes a list of the most- and least-contaminated fruits and vegetables each year—Dirty Dozen & Clean 15. This guide will help parents easily determine which fruits and vegetables are the most contaminated and replace them with their organic counterparts or with more of the conventionally grown Clean 15. Parents should also remember that diet is not the only method of pesticide exposure for children. A chemical-free environment both inside and outside a home is equally important.

Many parents may continue to purchase organic foods, motivated by the belief that every little bit helps. But still one wonders if the growing demand for organic food is a good thing or a prelude to “a future of less efficient, more expensive food?”