LOOK AT THIS ARTICLE AND COMPARE WITH THE QUALITY OF THE COMMENTS AT THE END. WHAT HAPPENED TO REAL JOURNALISM... FORGOT... IT NEVER EXISTED?
Organic food not healthier, says FSA
Report finds organic food provides no significant nutritional benefit compared with conventionally produced food
Organic food is no healthier and provides no significant nutritional benefit compared with conventionally produced food, according to a new, independent study funded by the Food Standards Agency. But its conclusions have been called into question by experts and organic food campaigners.
The report looked at evidence published over the past 50 years of the different nutrient levels found in crops and livestock from both types of farming and also at the health benefits of eating organic food. The findings, partly published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, contradict previous work that has found organically grown food to be nutritionally superior.
Dr Alan Dangour, who led the review by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: "Most studies were based on the hypothesis that eating organic food is beneficial to health. Looking at all of the studies published in the last 50 years, we have concluded that there's no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health based on the nutrient content."
He said that while small differences in nutrient content were found between organic and conventionally produced food, they were "unlikely to be of any public health relevance".
Organic food campaigners criticised the study for failing to consider fertiliser and pesticide residues in food. They expressed disappointment at its "limited" nature, saying that without long-term studies it did not provide a clear answer on whether eating organic food has health benefits. A leading food academic went further, saying he found the conclusions "selective in the extreme".
Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, said: "We are disappointed in the conclusions the researchers have reached. It doesn't say organic food is not healthier, just that, according to the criteria they have adopted, there's no proof that it is."
He criticised the methodology used by the team, which he said meant they rejected as "not important" some nutritional benefits they found in organic food, and led them to different conclusions from those reached by previous studies.
Melchett said: "The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences."
Carlo Leifert, a professor of ecological agriculture at Newcastle University and the co-ordinator of a major EU-funded study which recently found nutrient levels were higher in organic foods, said the conclusions of the study were selective.
He said: "I'm worried about the conclusions. The ballpark figures they have come up with are similar to ours. I don't understand why the FSA are not going away and saying, 'Right, there's something you can do on a farm to improve food.' But they are so blocked by not wanting to say positive things about organic farming."
The appendix of the FSA report shows that some nutrients, such as beta-carotene, are as much as 53% higher in organic food, but such differences are not reflected in its conclusions.
The farming of organic food, which is now worth £2bn in the UK alone, is governed by strict regulations that set it apart from conventional farming. Crops are not treated with artificial chemical fertilisers or pesticides, while antibiotics and drugs are not used routinely on livestock.
Gill Fine, the FSA director of consumer choice, defended the scope of the study. She said: "We are neither anti or pro organic food. We recognise there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. We specifically checked claims that organic food is better for you.
"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 there is not evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food."
When asked whether consumers had been misled over the benefits of organic food, she said: "If they are buying organic on the basis that it is healthier, then that is not the case."
The EU study co-ordinated by Leifert, which ended in May this year, involved 31 research and university institutes. It found that levels of nutritionally desirable compounds, such as antioxidants and vitamins, were higher in organic crops, while levels of nutritionally undesirable compounds such as toxic chemicals, mycotoxins and metals such as cadmium and nickel, were lower in organic crops.
's comment
Comments in chronological order (Total 72 comments)
-
smuglyfrombrazil 29 Jul 09, 7:02pm (about 6 hours ago)
What a pathetic criteria for a study!
The point of eating organic food is not a higher nutritional content but avoiding pesticides and the like, DUH!
Therefore, YES, it is healthier. -
- Recommend? (28)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
-
truthANDbeauty 29 Jul 09, 7:03pm (about 6 hours ago)
And guess what? There will be another report in six months saying that organic food is superior to non-organic food.
Does anybody trust the motives of the FSA anyway? I don't.
-
- Recommend? (15)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
- pyramide
29 Jul 09, 7:07pm (about 5 hours ago)
Should I pay the organic premium?
I am a bit confused. The article says that a serious study has shown that there are no extra health benefits to eating organic food. Then it quotes a couple of experts that say that it has not taken into account the higher levels of some nutrients in organic food.
Are these experts misleading us or is the study flawed?
- balloon
-
If I was given 2 pieces of fruit, 1 of which was covered in toxic pesticides and 1 of which was not...
oh what's the point?
-
- Recommend? (21)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
-
JohnCan45 29 Jul 09, 7:10pm (about 5 hours ago)
Organic food is superior to what, exactly - synthetic food? There appears to be much resistance to defining basic terms like this, and I suspect it's to do with the premium prices charged for supposedly healthier products.
-
- Recommend? (1)
- Report abuse
- Clip |
- Link
-
Sutch 29 Jul 09, 7:15pm (about 5 hours ago)
Funniest article of the day.
What is conventional food? Who grew it? Where? Did they use fertilizers? If so, what kind? How much? For which food? Any artificial, chemical fertilizers? What kind? How much per square foot? For which foods? Was the earth left fallow for one or more years before being used? Were any pesticides used? For which foods? In what quantities? Permitted by which rulings: UK, European, USA, world, other?
Was TASTE used as a criteria? If so, How? By whom? For which foods? Etc.
Most of all, who paid for this test to be carried out? How much? To whom? Why?
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment