Karen McVeigh

29 July, 2009
Organic food is no healthier than conventionally produced food, according to a
new, independent study funded by the Food Standards Agency. But experts and
organic food campaigners are questioning the study’s conclusions.
The study looked at the different nutrient levels found in crops and livestock from
both organic and conventional farming. It also looked at the health benefits of
eating organic food. The study, published in the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, contradicts previous reports that found organically grown food to have
nutritional benefits.
Dr Alan Dangour, who led the study at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine, said that they looked at all of the studies that were published in the last
50 years, and concluded that there’s no proof that eating organic food is good for
people’s health.
He said that although there were small differences in nutrient content between
organic and conventionally produced food, they were unlikely to make any
difference to people’s health.
Organic food campaigners criticized the study for not looking at fertilizer and
pesticide residues in food. They were disappointed with the study, and said that it
did not provide a clear answer on whether eating organic food has health
benefits.
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 there’s no proof that it is.”
He criticized the methodology used by the team because they didn’t include the
importance of some nutritional benefits they found in organic food. He said that
this had led them to different conclusions from those reached by
previous studies.
Carlo Leifert, a professor of ecological agriculture at Newcastle University and the
co-ordinator of a major EU-funded study which found that nutrient levels were
higher in organic foods, also said the conclusions of the study were selective. He
said: “I’m worried about the conclusions. 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 these differences are not in its
conclusions.
Organic food is now worth £2bn in the UK alone. Crops are not treated with
artificial chemical fertilizers or pesticides, and antibiotics and drugs are not used
on livestock.
Gill Fine, from the FSA, defended the study. She said: “We are not anti or pro
organic food. We recognize there are many reasons why people choose to eat
organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns.”
She continued: “This study does not say 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 no evidence of additional health
benefits from eating organic food.”
An EU study coordinated by Carlo Leifert, which ended in May this year, involved
31 research and university institutes. It found that levels of beneficial compounds,
such as antioxidants and vitamins, were higher in organic crops, while levels of
compounds such as toxic chemicals, mycotoxins and metals such as cadmium
and nickel, were lower in organic crops.
© Guardian News & Media 2009
First published in The Guardian, 29/07/09