Organic food ‘no healthier’

London Evening Standard
Sophie Goodchild

Organic produce is no better for health than conventional food, the Government's Food Standards Agency announced today.

Their report, after a 12-month study based on 50 years of research, says the benefits of chemical-free vegetables, fruit and meat have been overstated.

The findings could be a major blow to the £2billion-a-year organic food industry which has been hit by the recession.

Consumer group Which? said shoppers may now think twice about buying more expensive organic food.

The findings are based on the first comprehensive review into the nutrient value of organic food compared with food grown through conventional farming methods.

The FSA commissioned the study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. More than 100 types of food were studied including rice, chicken, milk and eggs.

The review, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found small but not “important” differences between the nutrient content of organic and conventional types of food.

Public health nutritionist Dr Alan Dangour, who led the review, said: “This is the first time all this evidence has been brought together under one single study. Organic food is no worse than conventional but there is certainly no reason for suggesting organic food has a superior nutritional content.

“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.

“There is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content.”

Organic campaigners today criticised the report as “out of date” and said it had failed to take into account the harmful impact of pesticides — a major reason for some people going organic. Soil Association policy director Lord Melchett said: “We don't think this report is going to change people's views.

“The fact is people buy organic for many reasons including the fact it is more environmentally friendly. And if you actually look at the data, it's a lot more positive than the authors say. There have been a lot of significant studies since this report was completed but they haven't been included.”

Sue Davies, of consumer group Which?, said: “Our research shows that people buy organic for a number of reasons — one of these being the perception that it's nutritionally better than conventional food. This research may make some people think twice before buying organic produce — but this is only part of the picture as other people buy it for reasons such as pesticide or animal welfare concerns.”

The FSA said it was “neither for or against' organic food and rejected calls to advise consumers against buying organic.

The watchdog said it had commissioned the study in response to criticism that it had not done enough to investigate claims over the nutritional benefits of organic food.

Gill Fine, FSA director of consumer choice and dietary health, said accurate information was “absolutely essential” so people can make informed choices about what they eat.

She said: “This study does not mean 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.”

Posted by Wintermute at July 30, 2009 08:50 PM