Organic food has no added nutritional benefit, says UK Food Standards Agency

Expensive organic food is no better for you than conventionally-grown farm produce, according to the Government's food watchdog.
Louise Gray, The Telegraph 29 Jul 09;

In the most comprehensive study ever to be carried out into the nutritional content of organic food compared to ordinary fare, scientists found no significant difference in vitamins and minerals.

A separate study found there are no extra health benefits to eating organic food rather than meat, fruits or vegetables grown on intensive farms.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA), which commissioned the research by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, concluded there was no reason to buy expensive organic food for nutritional reasons.

The study is likely to come as a blow to the billion-pound industry which is already struggling in the economic downturn as shoppers turn away from more expensive goods. For example, an organic chicken costs three times the price of a more conventionally-reared bird.

But celebrity chefs and organic farmers said the studies failed to take into account the health impact of the "cocktail of chemicals" left on conventional food and the environmental benefits of growing organic food on wildlife-friendly farms. Advocates claim the produce is better for you, with some claiming it can help cure skin conditions, asthma and even cancers.

However previous studies have proved confusing, with some claiming organic foods can provide more vitamins, while others find no difference to ordinary foods.

The new research looked for the first time at the best evidence over the last 50 years. After looking at 160 studies on the nutritional content of organic foods versus non organic it concluded there was no significant difference in vitamins and minerals that are important to human health. A further study of more than 50 studies on the health implications found no good evidence that organic food is better for you than non-organic.

Dr Alan Dangour, of the LSHTM, who carried out the studies, said the report was the most comprehensive review of the health benefits of organic food ever carried out.

"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," he said.

Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health, said there is no need for people to buy highly-priced organic food for the health benefits.

"The study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is 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."

The study did not look at pesticide residue or the environmental implications of organic food because this would be beyond the specialism of the scientists involved.

Lord Melchett, Policy Director of The Soil Association, argued that the small differences in minerals and vitamins found in the study do benefit health.

"The FSA study does show generally that there are beneficial nutrients in organic than non-organic, but the researchers have concluded these are not important - for example, flavonoids and beta carotene. We think they are and more recent studies back these up. "

Anthony Worrall Thompson, the celebrity chef, said an organic diet has made him healthier over the past 14 years, and the study failed to look at the health benefits of no pesticide residue and the environmental benefits of organic farms.

"There probably are as many nutrients in non-organic food as organic but there are a lot of other things going on – no one has done a study on the cocktail of chemicals on non-organic food."

Organic 'has no health benefits'
BBC News 29 Jul 09;

Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded.

There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.

The Food Standards Agency who commissioned the report said the findings would help people make an "informed choice".

But the Soil Association criticised the study and called for better research.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.

Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.

Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.

The same was true for studies looking at meat, dairy and eggs.

Differences that were detected, for example in levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest and are unlikely to provide any health benefit, the report concluded.

Gill Fine, FSA director of consumer choice and dietary health, said: "Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat.

"This study does not mean that 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."

She added that the FSA was neither pro nor anti organic food and recognised there were many reasons why people choose to eat organic, including animal welfare or environmental concerns.

Dr Dangour, said: "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."

He added that better quality studies were needed.

Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said they were disappointed with the conclusions.

"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.

"Although the researchers say that 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.

"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," he added.

Organic food not healthier, says FSA
Report finds organic food provides no significant nutritional benefit compared with conventionally produced food
Karen McVeigh, guardian.co.uk 29 Jul 09;

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.