Health and Safety Update (August 2009)
Organic Food not Nutritionally Better than Conventionally
Produced Food
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine have found that there is no evidence that organically
produced foods are nutritionally superior to conventionally
produced foodstuffs.
The Food Standards Agency commissioned the research as part of
its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their
food, based on the most up-to-date science.
The researchers found organically and conventionally produced
foods to be comparable in their nutrient content. For 10 out of the
13 nutrient categories analysed, there were no significant
differences in nutrient content between production methods. Small
differences that were detected were most likely to be due to
differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest. It is
thought unlikely that consuming these nutrients at the levels
reported in organic foods would provide any health benefit.
Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical
Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit,
and one of the report's authors, said-'A small number of
differences in nutrient content were found to exist between
organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, 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. Research in this area would benefit from
greater scientific rigour and a better understanding of the various
factors that determine the nutrient content of foodstuffs'.
The 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
review was not undertaken of the content of contaminants or
chemical residues in foods from different agricultural production
regimens.