The serious and difficult outcomes of saving extremely premature babies.

According to the CDC 1 in every 8 babies born in the US is preterm (birth of an infant prior to 37 weeks of pregnancy). 35% of all infant deaths in 2009 were because of preterm related causes of death. The US health care system spent about $26 billion on preterm births in 2005.
But the statistic that should be raising concern is that 'preterm birth is also a leading cause of long-term neurological disabilities in children.'

With modern medicine and all our advances in medical sciences, we have made it possible to save babies born at 22-23 weeks of gestation.  But preterm births are associated with some serious short term and long term complications. Not only do these prevent the child from living a normal healthy life they can take a severe toll on the family and the community. 

In the article 'Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I'd known then what I do now, I'd have wanted him to die in my arms' reporter Tracy McVeigh covers the story of Alexia Pearce mother of a three years old son who was born prematurely at 23 weeks and now lives a difficult life with cerebral palsy and chronic lung disease. Alexia loves her son deeply yet she asks if "we are always right to save premature babies". Here are excerpt of the story;

Alexia Pearce looks at her three-year-old son Nathan every day and feels the same rush of guilt. Guilt that she chose to let him live when he was born too early, just 23 weeks into her pregnancy. "If I'd known then what I know now about what extremely premature babies have to go though, I would not have chosen that for my little boy.

"I would have wanted them to give him to me and for him to pass away in my arms. I find the whole issue of what he has been put through, what he continues to be put through, very difficult. I feel very guilty that I took that decision, postponing the inevitable."

"He can't walk or talk. He's oxygen dependent, although hopefully that might change. He has chronic lung disease, cerebral palsy and global developmental delay. He has diabetes inspidus and his thermostat is a bit wonky so he gets hot and cold."
It is, says Pearce, a great taboo to wonder if she should have let her son go when he was born so fragile and weak, but one that she feels strongly that she should break. "More people need to be aware of what these little chaps go through," she said.
"I have no regrets that what has happened has happened. Now this most gorgeous little thing is here and I absolutely adore him. I am so glad I have got to know him. But that doesn't stop me knowing that all I have done is postpone the inevitable. He's not expected to live a very long life. I don't think he'll make it to his teens. He's so frail.

While the latest figures show that 39% of babies born at 24 weeks are now surviving with help from medical advances, the chances of those children suffering no serious ill-effects in later life are low – around six in 100.Last year, researchers from University College Hospital, London, found that premature babies were more sensitive to pain. All pre-term babies are more at risk of a lower IQ, poorer cognitive functioning, learning disabilities and behavioural problems such as attention deficit disorder than full-term babies.
Last year, researchers from University College Hospital, London, found that premature babies were more sensitive to pain. All pre-term babies are more at risk of a lower IQ, poorer cognitive functioning, learning disabilities and behavioural problems such as attention deficit disorder than full-term babies.
"You hear about 'miracle babies' or 'little fighters' and people have such a romantic view about premature babies – 'Oh, there's an incubator for a little while and then they go home and everything is rosy'. It's not."

"Obviously every life deserves a chance, every life. But you wouldn't put an adult through that. You wouldn't put an animal through it. If an adult required that level of medical intervention then someone would be taking the family aside and suggesting gently that the machines are switched off."
Pearce had no warning of her own premature birth, brought about by a sudden complication in the pregnancy, a placental abruption, and had none of the risk factors – she doesn't drink or smoke, isn't obese and her first son, Dominick, now five, was born at full term.

"Birth and death are the most natural processes a body can go through and Nathan's birth and treatment was so far removed from that. Strange birth, choices to be made, difficult bonding. I had to wait six weeks to hold my son and when I did he was still attached to a ventilator and I had many nurses around me. It was all so clinical."
An advocate or counsellor figure would, she feels, help the mother think more clearly about the situation.

But for Alexia Pearce, it's important for families to fully understand too that the difficult times do not end when the baby leaves the incubator. "When you go into labour that early, nobody is a winner," she said. "I'm not saying stop people from having their premature baby resuscitated. I'm not saying babies shouldn't be saved. I am saying that the myth that there is a happy ever after needs to be explored and it's important that we talk about it.

(Read Complete Article)

References:
'Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I'd known then what I do now, I'd have wanted him to die in my arms' (The Guardian/The Observer)
CDC Reproductive Health- Preterm Births 
Preterm Births- Complications (Mayo Clinic) 

Neurodevelopmental, Health, and Family Outcomes for Infants Born Preterm

(NCBI- National Center for Biotechnology Information)

A surge in antimicrobial resistance reported by WHO

The constant increase in the incidence of antimicrobial resistant infections is now becoming a major concern for the WHO. According to their recent report on 'Antimicrobial Resistance' this is a very real threat to global public health.
In recent decades the world has been aware of the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria and has been trying to promote responsible use of antibiotic treatment in an effort to counteract this rise. But it is the first time that the WHO has warned of a much more serious problem since antimicrobial resistance covers a much broader spectrum of microbes (eg. parasites, fungi, and viruses).

If such a resistance is seen the world over, effective treatment of even common infection may be difficult or impossible. According to the report;

Infections caused by resistant microorganisms often fail to respond to the standard treatment, resulting in prolonged illness, higher health care expenditures, and a greater risk of death.
As an example, the death rate for patients with serious infections caused by common bacteria treated in hospitals can be about twice that of patients with infections caused by the same non-resistant bacteria. For example, people with MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, another common source of severe infections in the community and in hospitals) are estimated to be 64% more likely to die than people with a non-resistant form of the infection.


Although this kind of resistance to antimicrobial is being seen more around the world. Unfortunately not only do many of these cases go unreported, but often the infections last longer, leaving the patients infectious for a much longer time period , thus increasing the risk of further spreading the infection to others.

The report also highlights another consequence of AMR (Antimicrobial resistance), when infections fail to respond to first line of drugs, doctors have to resort to more aggressive therapies which are far more expensive, patients need medical supervision for a longer duration and hospital stays are also prolonged. All together these factors significantly increase the health care costs.

According to the report, the economic outcome can be damaging;

The growth of global trade and travel allows resistant microorganisms to be spread rapidly to distant countries and continents through humans and food. Estimates show that AMR may give rise to losses in Gross Domestic Product of more than 1% and that the indirect costs affecting society may be more than 3 times the direct health care expenditures. It affects developing economies proportionally more than developed ones. 

Some of the noteworthy resistances being seen globally are:

Resistance in Bacteria

WHO’s 2014 report on global surveillance of antimicrobial resistance reveals that antibiotic resistance is no longer a prediction for the future; it is happening right now, across the world, and is putting at risk the ability to treat common infections in the community and hospitals. Without urgent, coordinated action, the world is heading towards a post-antibiotic era, in which common infections and minor injuries, which have been treatable for decades, can once again kill.

Resistance in Tuberculosis

Globally, 6% of new TB cases and 20% of previously treated TB cases are estimated to have MDR-TB, with substantial differences in the frequency of MDR-TB among countries. Extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB, defined as MDR-TB plus resistance to any fluoroquinolone and any second-line injectable drug) has been identified in 92 countries, in all regions of the world.

Resistance in Malaria

The emergence of P. falciparum resistance to artemisinin in the Greater Mekong subregion is an urgent public health concern that is threatening the ongoing global effort to reduce the burden of malaria. Routine monitoring of therapeutic efficacy is essential to guide and adjust treatment policies. It can also help to detect early changes in P. falciparum sensitivity to antimalarial drugs.

Resistance in HIV

At the end of 2011, more than 8 million people were receiving antiretroviral therapy in low- and middle-income countries to treat HIV. Although it can be minimized through good programme practices, some amount of resistance to the medications used to treat HIV is expected to emerge. 

There is no clear evidence of increasing levels of resistance to other classes of HIV drugs. Of 72 surveys of transmitted HIV drug resistance conducted between 2004 and 2010, 20 (28%) were classified as having moderate (between 5% and 15%) prevalence of resistance.

Resistance in Influenza

Several countries have developed national guidance on their use and have stockpiled the drugs for pandemic preparedness. The constantly evolving nature of influenza means that resistance to antiviral drugs is continuously emerging.
By 2012, virtually all influenza A viruses circulating in humans were resistant to drugs frequently used for the prevention of influenza (amantadine and rimantadine). However, the frequency of resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir remains low (1-2%). Antiviral susceptibility is constantly monitored through the WHO Global Surveillance and Response System.


How can this surge be slowed down?

According to the WHO report, this rise in AMR is the result of a multiple factors. 
Here are some suggestions it provides in the report:

People

• using antibiotics only when they are prescribed by a certified health professional;
• completing the full treatment course, even if they feel better;
• never sharing antibiotics with others or using leftover prescriptions.

Health Care Workers And Pharmacists

• enhancing infection prevention and control;
• prescribing and dispensing antibiotics only when they are truly needed;
• prescribing and dispensing the right antibiotic(s) to treat the illness.

Policymakers 

• strengthening resistance tracking and laboratory capacity;
• strengthening infection control and prevention;
• regulating and promoting appropriate use of medicines;
• promoting cooperation and information sharing among all stakeholders.

Policymakers, Scientists and Industry

• fostering innovation and research and development of new vaccines, diagnostics, infection treatment options and other tools. 

In the end what is the WHO doing to counteract AMR? 
 
In 2014, WHO published its first global report on surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, with data provided by 114 countries.
WHO is guiding the response to AMR by:

• bringing all stakeholders together to agree on and work towards a coordinated response;
• strengthening national stewardship and plans to tackle AMR;
• generating policy guidance and providing technical support for Member States;
• actively encouraging innovation, research and development.

 

















References:
WHO Report on Antimicrobial Resistance (Updated April 2014)
Detect and Protect Against Antibiotic Resistance Budget Initiative (CDC)

WHO report: Antibiotic resistance happening right now all over the world (The Independent-April 30, 2014)

The damage caused by bullying persists much longer then the bullying itself

According to a longitudinal British study just published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the detrimental effects of bullying can lasts for decades and influence a person's socioeconomic status, social relationships, often leading to a poorer quality of life as far out as in their 50s.
As reported by the researchers of the study;

The impact of bullying victimization was not limited to indicators of adult health. Children who  were frequently bullied had lower educational levels at midlife, and men in the labor market were  more likely to be unemployed and to earn less than their peers. Social relationships in adulthood were affected too; children who were bullied were at increased risk of living without a spouse or partner at age 50, were less likely to have met up with friends in the recent past, and were less  likely to have access to social support if they were sick. Bullying victimization also affected adult well-being; being bullied was associated with lower perceived quality of  life at age 50 and lower satisfaction with life so far. Cohort members who had been frequently bullied also anticipated less life satisfaction in the years to come. When  controlling for childhood confounders, bullying victimization became marginally associated with unemployment (for men), net pay (for men), and meeting friends in the  last 2 weeks. All other associations remained significant.
 
In this study data was collected from almost 98% of all births in one week of 1958 in Scotland, England and Wales, leading to about 18,000 participants. Subsequent follow-up were then carried out at age 7, 11 and 16 years in their childhood, and then at ages 23, 33, 42, and 50 years in adulthood. To assess presence and frequency of bullying during childhood researchers interviewed parents. Whereas the psychological distress resulting in adult life was assessed through various standardized test.

It is clear from these observations that in addition to effectively reducing incidents of childhood bullying efforts must be made to minimize its effect on mental, emotional and physical.

To learn more about bullying and to find help please check Stopbullying.gov


References:
Adult Health Outcomes of Childhood Bullying Victimization: Evidence From a Five-Decade Longitudinal British Birth Cohort (American Journal of Psychiatry)
Mental And Physical Toll Of Bullying Persists For Decades (Health News from NPR)
 

Green makes us all happier

A recent survey of 2500 individuals about anxiety, depression and stress conducted and analyzed by researchers at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. They also analyzed 229 neighborhoods for vegetation cover. The verdict; people who live close to a park and green spaces are happier!

These results were discussed on Co.Exist (Fast Company) by  Ben Schiller in his recent article, '

If You Live Near A Park, You're More Likely To Be Happy' 

Those places with more trees tended to be happier, and the association was "significant and sizable," according to a paper discussing the results. In fact, the relationship of happiness to trees was similar to well-known correlations, like unemployment. "The most interesting thing is that decreased symptoms attributed to green space were similar to decreases observed for other important determinants of mental health, including insurance status and income," wrote Kirsten Beyer, an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in an email.

The paper shows the difference in well-being levels between areas with zero tree canopy cover and 100% canopy cover was greater than the well-being difference between someone having and not having health insurance.

Read on




References:

Longitudinal Effects on Mental Health of Moving to Greener and Less Green Urban Areas

(International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health)

If You Live Near A Park, You're More Likely To Be Happy'

(Fast Company- Co.Exist) 

Older dads might increase the risk of mental health issues in their children

A child's health issues have often been linked to their mother's age at time of their birth. Now a study at University of Indiana has found evidence that a father's age can influence a child's risk of developing conditions such as autism, ADHD and bipolar disorder. The children of older fathers were also seen to be more likely to consider suicide.

As reported in The Independent by Ian Johnston in his article Children of older dads face more health problem;

Scientists at Indiana University found that a child born when their father is 45 was 3.5 times more likely to have autism, 13 times more likely to have ADHD and 25 times more likely to have bipolar disorder than the child of a 24-year-old man.
Suicidal behaviour and substance misuse was twice as likely, according to the study, which is published today in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
Brian D’Onofrio, who led the research, told The Times: “We were shocked by the findings. The specific associations with paternal age were much, much larger than in previous studies.”
The researchers looked at information about everyone born in Sweden from 1973 until 2001, some 2,615,081 people.
Christopher Barratt, a professor of Reproductive Medicine at Dundee University, suggested younger men should consider freezing their sperm in case they want to have a child when they are in their 40s.

(Read on)


References:

Children of older dads face more health problems (The Independent- April 4, 2014) 

A Comprehensive Assessment of Parental Age and Psychiatric Disorders (JAMA Psychiatry) 

 

Several studies find further evidence of detrimental effects caused by marijuana smoking

Since this wave of legalization of use of recreational marijuana is spreading gradually but surely to more and more states in the United States, more and more studies funded by medical institutions and organizations are reporting on the very real dangers of frequent marijuana use. I am going to highlight only a few of the studies published on the subject in various medical journals in the past few years.

Journal of Neuroscience (April 16, 2014)

This study conducted by researchers from Harvard University and Chicago's Northwestern Medicine group, using a small sample of 40 individuals between the ages of 18-25 has shown that smoking cannabis ( also known as marijuana) once or twice a week can lead to major changes in brain areas associated with emotions and motivation.

In an article on this study, "Smoking cannabis could change the part of the brain dealing with motivation, according to one new study" published in The Independent ( April 16th 2014), health reporter Charlie Cooper writes;

The researchers used neuroimaging techniques to analyze the brains of cannabis users and non-users.

They found that the nucleus accumbens was unusually large in the cannabis users, while the amygdala also had noticeable abnormalities.
Anne Blood, assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School said that the areas affected were "core, fundamental structures of the brain".
"They form the basis for how you assess positive and negative features about things in the environment and make decisions," she said.
The severity of abnormalities in these regions of the brain was directly related to the number of joints a person smoked per week, according to the study, published in the Journal of Neuroscience on Wednesday. The more joints a person smoked, the more abnormal the shape, volume and density of the brain regions, but the effect was noticeable even in those who smoked once or twice a week.
However, experts in the UK said that the study group was small and that more research was needed over a longer timescale to establish whether cannabis smoking caused the unusual brain features, or whether people with such brain features were more likely to smoke cannabis in the first place.
Around one million people aged between 16 and 24 use cannabis in the UK per year, according to the charity DrugScope. Its use has been reported to cause anxiety and paranoia in some users and in rarer cases may be a trigger for underlying mental health problems.
Dr Michael Bloomfield, clinical research fellow at the UK's Medical Research Council (MRC), said that the study added to the MRC's own research which found that heavy cannabis use in adolescence is associated with changes in chemical connections in the brain.

Schizophrenia Bulletin ( December 16, 2013)

Yet another study conducted by Northwestern Medicine and mainly funded by The National Institute of Mental Health and National Institute of Drug Abuse, has shown that heavy use of marijuana (daily for 3 years) in teen years can lead to abnormal changes in the brain structure related to memory. The teens in the study performed poorly on memory tasks.
According to lead study author Matthew Smith, an assistant research professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, " The study links the chronic use of marijuana to these concerning brain abnormalities that appear to last for at least a few years after people stop using it, with the movement to decriminalize marijuana, we need more research to understand its effect on the brain."
Chronic use of marijuana may contribute to changes in brain structure that are associated with having schizophrenia, the Northwestern research shows. Of the 15 marijuana smokers who had schizophrenia in the study, 90 percent started heavily using the drug before they developed the mental disorder. Marijuana abuse has been linked to developing schizophrenia in prior research.

As reported in 'Heavy marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory'

by Eureka Alert online science news service;

"The abuse of popular street drugs, such as marijuana, may have dangerous implications for young people who are developing or have developed mental disorders," said co-senior study author John Csernansky, M.D., chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Northwestern Memorial Hospital. "This paper is among the first to reveal that the use of marijuana may contribute to the changes in brain structure that have been associated with having schizophrenia."
Chronic marijuana use could augment the underlying disease process associated with schizophrenia, Smith noted. "If someone has a family history of schizophrenia, they are increasing their risk of developing schizophrenia if they abuse marijuana," he said.
While chronic marijuana smokers and chronic marijuana smokers with schizophrenia both had brain changes related to the drug, subjects with the mental disorder had greater deterioration in the thalamus. That structure is the communication hub of the brain and is critical for learning, memory and communications between brain regions. The brain regions examined in this study also affect motivation, which is already notably impaired in people with schizophrenia.
"A tremendous amount of addiction research has focused on brain regions traditionally connected with reward/aversion function, and thus motivation," noted co-senior study author Hans Breiter, M.D., professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Warren Wright Adolescent Center at Feinberg and Northwestern Memorial. "This study very nicely extends the set of regions of concern to include those involved with working memory and higher level cognitive functions necessary for how well you organize your life and can work in society."


Journal of Chemical Research in Toxicology (May 18, 2009)

The study Dr. Michael Bloomfield mentions was conducted by  Leicester University’s Rajinder Singh, Jatinderpal Sandhu, Balvinder Kaur, Tina Juren, William P. Steward, Dan Segerback and Peter B. Farmer from the Cancer Biomarkers and Prevention Group, Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine and Karolinska Institute, Sweden. This research was funded by MRC, European Union Network of Excellence (ECNIS) and Cancer Research UK. The findings were published in the Journal of Chemical Research in Toxicology.
In this case researchers found "convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that could potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.  

Lead author Dr Singh said:
“There have been many studies on the toxicity of tobacco smoke. It is known that tobacco smoke contains 4000 chemicals of which 60 are classed as carcinogens. Cannabis in contrast has not been so well studied. It is less combustible than tobacco and is often mixed with tobacco in use. Cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. However, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.” 
The authors added: “It is well known that toxic substances in tobacco smoke can damage DNA and increase the risk of lung and other cancers. Scientists were unsure though whether cannabis smoke would have the same effect. Our research has focused on the toxicity of acetaldehyde, which is present in both tobacco and cannabis.”
The researchers add that the ability of cannabis smoke to damage DNA has significant human health implications especially as users tend to inhale more deeply than cigarette smokers, which increases respiratory burden.
"These results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke," the researchers conclude, "implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development."

Although in each case marijuana use supporters will argue the sample sizes are too small or the study was biased, the results of each of these researches were very real. If anything further promotion of the idea that recreational use of marijuana is completely harmless should be discouraged more aggressively.


References:

Cannabis Use is Quantitatively Associated with Nucleus Accumbens and Amygdala Abnormalities in Young Adult

Recreational Users (The Journal of Neuroscience-April 16, 2014)

Smoking cannabis could change the part of the brain dealing with motivation, according to one new study(The Independent April 16, 2014)
Cannabis use increases cancer risk study suggests (MRC News & Publications)
Marijuana May Hurt The Developing Teen Brain(Health News NPR-March 3, 2014)
Heavy Marijuana Use Alters Teenage Brain Structure(Psychology Today-March 30, 2014)

Heavy marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory (Northwestern University on Eureka Alert-December 16, 2013)

Cannabis-Related Working Memory Deficits and Associated Subcortical Morphological Differences in Healthy Individuals and Schizophrenia Subjects (Schizophrenia Bulletin- Published 12/15/13) 

Evaluation of the DNA Damaging Potential of Cannabis Cigarette Smoke by the Determination of Acetaldehyde Derived N²-Ethyl-2′-deoxyguanosine Adducts(Chemical Research in Toxicology-May 18, 2009)

 

How much benefit do we really get from Organic food?

Most people myself included tend to think of organic foods as healthier and safer. But that may not always be the case, points out Tamar Haspel in her recent article in The Washington Post's Health and food section. To make it simple she simply gives the evidence on the nutrition and contamination of both organic and conventional foods such as milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish. Here is a short excerpt of the article;

Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.

Organic or conventional? It’s a choice many grocery shoppers are faced with, over and over. The price difference is easy to see; it’s right there on the product. The quality difference is much harder. Is the organic milk better for your kids? Is the conventional lettuce more likely to carry pathogens?

Leave aside for the moment whether organic agriculture is better for the planet and whether organic livestock have better lives, although there’s a strong case for both of those arguments. Leave aside flavor, too, because it’s subjective and variable. What motivates many organic buyers, particularly the parents of small children, is health benefits, and there are two questions: Do organics do us more good (in the form of better nutrition), and do they do us less harm (in the form of fewer contaminants and pathogens)? 

Milk 
 
Nutrition: Compared with conventional milk, organic milk has higher levels of omega-3 fats, which protect against heart disease and may decrease the risk of depression, stroke, cancer and other diseases, but the quantities are too small to be very meaningful. (It takes 11 quarts of organic milk to equal the omega-3s in four ounces of salmon.) Milk’s omega-3 content is a function of the cow’s diet, and higher levels reflect more grass. (A few other nutritional differences between organic and conventional milk have been studied, but there isn’t enough research to draw conclusions.)
Contamination: Neither organic nor conventional milk contains antibiotics. By law, every truckload of milk, organic and conventional, is tested for veterinary drugs, including antibiotics, by trained dairy workers. Any load that tests positive is pulled out of the food supply.
Hormones: The issue with milk is that many conventionally raised dairy cows, unlike organic ones, are injected with bovine growth hormone (BGH, the synthetic version of which is called either recombinant bovine growth hormone, rBGH, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, rBST) to increase their milk production.Both organic and conventional cows have IGF-I in their milk, but cows that get hormone treatment may have more of it.
The use of rBGH has fueled concerns among some parents about giving milk to children, but the FDA report concluded that “consumption by infants and children of milk and edible products from rBGH-treated cows is safe.”
Bottom line: Organic milk has higher omega-3 fat levels, but probably not enough to make a difference. Exposure to pesticides, contaminants or hormones is not a significant risk in either organic or conventional milk.
 
Produce

Nutrition: Many studies have compared the vitamins, minerals, macronutrients and other compounds in organic and conventional produce, and a 2012 review concluded that the results were all over the map. The one exception was that the phosphorus content of organic produce is higher, although the review, done by Stanford University scientists, calls that finding “not clinically significant.”
Contamination: There are two issues for foods that grow in the ground: pesticides and pathogens. There is widespread agreement that organic produce, while not pesticide-free, has lower residue levels and fewer pesticides.
Carl Winter, a toxicologist at the University of California at Davis, says that the Environmental Protection Agency, working from animal research and factoring in the special sensitivities of human subgroups such as babies and children, has found that lifetime risk of adverse health effects due to low-level exposure to pesticide residue through consumption of produce is “far below even minimal health concerns, even over a lifetime.” 
As for pathogens, the 2012 Stanford review found that E. coli contamination is slightly more likely in organic than conventional produce.
The best strategy to reduce risk from produce isn’t to buy either organic or conventional. Rather, it’s to cook your food.
Bottom line: While there may be no significant nutritional difference between organic and conventional produce, organic does have lower levels of pesticide residue. However, there isn’t universal agreement on the risk those residues pose.
 
Meat
 
Nutrition: As with milk, the main issue here is omega-3 fats. Some organic meat and poultry have more of them than conventional products do. The reason is diet: Animals that eat more grass have lower fat levels overall and higher omega-3 levels than animals fed more grain.
Although measurements of omega-3 fats in beef vary, the numbers are low and substantially below what can be found in a serving of salmon.
Contaminants: The USDA randomly tests carcasses for residues of pesticides, contaminants and veterinary drugs including antibiotics. In 2011, it screened for 128 chemicals, and 99 percent of the tested carcasses were free of all of them.
It found a few with residue violations and a similar small number with residue within legal limits (mostly of arsenic and antibiotics). Although the USDA doesn’t report organic and conventional separately, contaminant risk overall is extremely low.
The bigger concern is pathogens. Studies of bacterial contamination levels of organic and conventional meat show widely varying results. These findings suggest that organic meat may be slightly more likely to be contaminated, possibly because no antibiotics are used. But conventional meat is more likely to be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. But the risk in meat overall was essentially the same. And whether meat is conventional or organic, the solution is adequate cooking.
Bottom line: Grass-fed beef has a slight edge over grain-fed because of higher omega-3 levels, but the amounts are probably too small to affect human health.

Eggs
 
Nutrition: As with milk and meat, the omega-3 levels of eggs are affected by the hens’ diet and can be increased by pasturing or diet supplementation for either organic or conventional hens. Eggs high in omega-3s are generally labeled.
Contaminants: There’s very little research on contaminants in eggs. The 2012 Stanford review concluded that there is “no difference” in contamination risk between conventional and organic eggs.
Bottom line: There are no significant differences affecting health between organic and conventional eggs.  

Fish
 
The USDA has not issued any organic standards for farmed fish or shellfish, but several overseas organizations have. (Because there’s no way to control the diet of wild fish, “organic” doesn’t apply.) Canadian standards prohibit antibiotics and hormones, restrict pesticides and set criteria for acceptable feed. There’s not enough research comparing organic and conventional fish to draw any conclusions about their health benefits.


Reference:
Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.


(The Washington Post- Health, Science and Environment 07/04/14)