In the past few decades, the negative effects of pesticides have been receiving more and more attention in the media. As a result, the organic movement has experienced an exponential increase in popularity, with many of us aiming to eat organic produce whenever possible.
While the studies are mixed on whether organic produce contains more nutrients than their conventionally grown counterparts, they are presumably lower in pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides.
There's a lot of research lauding the benefits of organic fruits and vegetables; there are very few studies comparing organic meats to nonorganic meats. Recently, a 2015 study dove into this topic, with surprising results.
In this study, Spanish researchers examined 76 samples of organic and conventional beef, chicken, and lamb for 33 carcinogenic pollutants that are commonly found in nonorganic meat. As expected, pesticides were found in the nonorganic samples.
The surprising finding came from the organic samples — not only were none of the samples free from contaminants, but the difference in levels of pollutants between the organic and conventional samples was very minimal.
Of all the samples, they found that lamb — both nonorganic and organic — had the highest level of pesticides. In fact, the organic samples actually contained more pollutants.
In short, the organic meat was far from being devoid of persistent organic pollutants. It appears that none of the researchers in this study were funded by the large meat industry, which makes the findings even more powerful.
Although studies on organic meat are rare (only 35 studies appear in Medline when "organic meat" is searched), a meta-analysis published in March 2016 showed that the nutrient quality was different between conventional and organic meat, with organic meat having more unsaturated fat, including the anti-inflammatory omega-3s.
Similarly, another group of researchers found that people who ate grass-fed beef had higher levels of omega-3s compared with those who ate conventional meat.