An independent review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has shown that there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food. The focus of the review, which was carried out by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) was the nutritional content of foodstuffs.
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.”
Fine added that the agency’s stance on organic food was neutral and that it supported the consumer’s right to choose. She said: “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.”
The study was a systematic review of literature lead by LSHTM’s Dr Alan Dangour of the school’s nutrition and public health intervention research unit. The researchers reviewed all papers published over the past 50 years that related to the nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food. Their research was split into two separate parts: one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food. A paper reporting the results of the review of nutritional differences has been peer-reviewed and published today by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Dangour said: “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. 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.”
But the research has riled the Soil Association. Policy director at the organic certification and lobby group Peter Melchett said: “We are disappointed in the conclusions the researchers have reached. The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences. This was because these studies did not meet particular criteria fixed by the LSHTM. 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.”
Melchett also bemoaned the lack of research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health. He said: “There are limited studies available on the health benefits of organic versus non-organic food. 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. In 2006 the European Commission said that ‘long-term exposure to pesticides can lead to serious disturbances to the immune system, sexual disorders, cancers, sterility, birth defects, damage to the nervous system and genetic damage.’ Organic farming and food systems are holistic, and are produced to work with nature rather than to rely on oil-based inputs such as fertilisers. Consumers who purchase organic products are not just buying food which has not been covered in pesticides (the average apple may be sprayed up to 16 times with as many as 30 different pesticides) they are supporting a system that has the highest welfare standards for animals, bans routine use of antibiotics and increases wildlife on farms.”
But Guild of Fine Food chair Bob Farrand is not the least bit surprised organic food is no better for us than non-organic. “We’ve long viewed organic food as a metropolitan, middle class fad,” he said. “It was born and fostered more out of fears of what might be in our food than any clear understanding of how good food and drink is produced.”
He continued: “Some organic food is superb, some is not worth its premium price. If consumers were to consider where and how something was made and the provenance of the ingredients used, they would worry less about organics and more about food quality.“
No comments yet