A report commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency has dealt a hefty blow to the organic food sector after it concluded there was no significant difference in the nutritional value or health benefits associated with organically produced products compared with food produced using conventional methods.
The study, which was conducted by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), looked at a broad number of research projects conducted over the past 50 years.
Of the 55 studies referenced in the final report, only a handful confirmed differences in the nutritional content of organic versus conventional food. Those differences, said the LSHTM, were not large enough to make any difference to public health.
'A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance,' said Dr Alan Dangour, who led the investigation. 'Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.'
Published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the report found no differences in most nutrients – including vitamin C, calcium, and iron – between the two kinds of crop.
Where differences were observed, for example in the level of nitrogen and phosphorus detected, these were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest and were unlikely to provide any health benefit, the report concluded.
However, the report has been heavily criticised by UK organics lobby group the Soil Association. Policy director Peter Melchett argued that the review had rejected almost all the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.
'Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods,' he said. 'Without large-scale, longitudinal research, it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review. Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health.'
The study did not take into consideration the use of pesticides or the environmental impact of the different farming practices involved.
Gill Fine, FSA director of consumer choice and dietary health, said: 'Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat. This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.'
She added: “We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence.”
