…. Organic farming and grass feeding are promoted as having some social and environmental benefits compared with conventionally produced red meats. However, are they any healthier?
Studies of the bacterial contamination of organic versus conventional meat suggest that organic meat may slightly be more contaminated. However, conventional meat might become more contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria; though the evidence is inconclusive.
From a nutritional perspective, some organic meats have the potential to contain more omega-3 fatty acids. This is because organic livestock are more likely to be fed a forage-based diet such as grass, producing slightly higher omega-3 levels …. However, a review of the research found little overall evidence of a difference.
It’s also unclear if these small differences translate into health benefits in the context of a balanced diet.
…[T]he difference in hormone levels between hormone-fed and hormone-free beef is small. A single consumer would need to eat more than 77 kilograms of beef from a hormone-treated animal in one sitting to get the same level of oestrogen hormone found in one egg. Hormone levels are regulated …. to ensure that they are safe for consumers and not harmful to animals.
There may be slight nutritional differences between organic and grass-fed meat compared with non-organic and grain-fed varieties, but based on current evidence it’s unlikely to make a substantial difference to our health.
Read full, original article: Organic, grass fed and hormone-free: does this make red meat any healthier?