Researchers who carried out the study for the Food Standards Agency say they found "no evidence for superior nutritional content of organic produce".
Alan Dangour, of the school's Public Health Intervention Research Unit, 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."
The study was based on 162 relevant papers — whittled down from more than 50,000 papers searched — that were published over a 50-year period up to 29 February 2008.
But only 55 of the 162 identified articles were of "satisfactory quality" for the study as they had to provide certain information such as the organic certification scheme from which the foodstuffs were derived and the cultivar of crop.
Policy director at the Soil Association Peter Melchett criticised the review for rejecting almost all of the existing studies that compare the two food types, including an €18m EU study that ended in April this year and found that "levels of a range of nutritionally desirable compounds were shown to be higher in organic crops".
Melchett said: "Although the researchers say 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.
For example, the mean positive difference between the following nutrients, when comparing organic to non-organic food are:
Protein 12.7%
Beta-carotene 53.6%
Flavonoids 38.4%
Copper 8.3%
Magnesium 7.1%
Phosphorous 6%
Potassium 2.5%
Sodium 8.7%
Sulphur 10.5%
Zinc 11.3%
Phenolic compounds 13.2
Subscribe to Horticulture Week for more news, more in-depth features and more technical and market info.
All Comments
Organic produce might make today's \(more affluent) consumer feel better about what they eat, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no hard evidence to back the claim of higher nutrient levels - or that it is truly better for you. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact - the risk of E. coli contamination is substantially higher in organically-grown veggies.
In independent research, organic food has been shown to have higher levels of nutrients, from vitamins and minerals to iron and essential fatty acids like Omega-3
The FSA researchers report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods. For example: http://tinyurl.com/mtjked
They also found higher levels of beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acids in organic meat and dairy products (between 2.1% - 27.8% higher) compared to non-organic meat and dairy.
The FSA failed to include the results of a major European Union-funded study involving 31 research and university institutes and the publication, so far, of more than 100 scientific papers, at a cost of 18million Euros, which ended in April this year.The European Union research programme concluded that:
In addition, levels of fatty acids, such as CLA and omega 3 were between 10 - 60% higher in organic milk and dairy products, and levels of Vitamin C were up to 90% higher in leafy vegetables and fruits.
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 food minimises food poisoning risks - a government survey gave organic food a clean bill of health and confirmed expectations that organic methods, such as the careful composting of manure, minimise pathogenic risks such as E.coli o157. In addition, a review of publications found that 'organic foods tend to be less contaminated' with mycotoxins. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/IMIOF.php
No one believes these studies any more because they think that the government is behind them spinning for some advantage to themselves.
And next week there will be another study saying the opposite.
55 articles - and they call this a study? Hilarious. Good - something else that doesn't need to be taken seriously then. Anyway, organic v non-organic is a no-brainer. Do I want pesticides in my food or don't I?
Other than the government telling me I need 5 a-day fruit/veg, its difficult to find out how much magnesium, copper, anti-oxidants, sulphur and beta-carotene I need to be consuming, which makes the issue of the nutritional value of organic vs non-organic seemingly pointless.
However 'organic' food allows growers and farmers \(especially smaller growers) to sell there product at a decent price, and there is no doubt that the soil association \(and the movement) has helped to change the approach to farming practices for the better eg. Campaigning against the use of antibiotics in animal feed & banning animal protein from livestock feed.
The fact that so many of the academic papers were rejected, highlights the need for proper research from rigorous testing, something maybe the soil association needs to concentrate on rather than the PR exercises it seems to of lately. Eg. Awarding in 2005 'Dr' McKeith the 'Best Organic Businesses 2005 Consumer Education Award'
Some of her work has been labled as 'pseudo-academic' and in 2007 the ASA judged her 'Dr' title as breechin the codes for truthfulness and substantiation.