Organic food report admits to lack of evidence

Organic food report admits to lack of evidence


Ecologist
29th July, 2009


FSA review dismisses health benefits of eating organic but admits to a lack of research on which to base findings
Organic food is not healthier or more nutritious than conventionally produced food, according to a review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

Looking at 50 years of published studies, researchers said there was not enough evidence to prove any additional health or nutritional benefits to consumers from eating organic.

'This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food,' said FSA director of consumer choice Gill Fine.

'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.'

Lack of research

Researchers could only identify 11 studies relating to the health content of organic food and admitted the current evidence base was, 'extremely limited both in terms of the number of studies and the quality of studies found'.

They found more studies on nutritional content but said, 'examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.'

The Soil Association, the leading voice of the organic sector in the UK, said the FSA failed to include the results from a major EU-funded study which found higher levels of 'nutritionally desirable compounds' in organic crops.

They also criticised the FSA for ignoring the issue of pesticide residues and their possible long-term effect on human health.

An FSA spokeswoman said the study was done in response to consumer confusion over the possible nutritional benefits of eating organic and that pesticide contamination was not in the review's remit.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_r ... dence.html

Study downplays benefits of organic food


29/07/2009
Breaking News


Eating organic food does not provide any significant nutritional or health benefits, according to a study published in the UK today.

An independent review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK found there were no important differences between organic and conventionally-produced food.

The conclusion was reached after a team of researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) reviewed all papers published over the last 50 years relating to nutrient content and health differences between the two kinds of produce.

Organic farming, which focuses on protecting wildlife and the environment, means no artificial chemical fertilisers are used, pesticide use is restricted and animals are expected to be free range.

It has become increasingly popular in recent years, with supermarkets offering organic options on many items.

But the paper reporting the results of the review of nutritional differences - published today by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition – appears to cast doubt on the potential benefits to people’s health from the method.

Principal author Dr Alan Dangour, of the LSHTM’s nutrition and public health intervention research unit, said: “A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally-produced crops and livestock, 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.â€

Organic food really IS better for you, claims study


London Evening Standard
28.10.07


Organic food is healthier than conventional produce and may be better at preventing cancer and heart disease, according to the biggest study of its kind.

In a finding that challenges official advice, researchers have shown that fruit and vegetables contain up to 40 per cent more nutrients if they are grown without chemical fertilisers and pesticides.

The £12 million project also found that organic milk contains 80 per cent more antioxidants -substances which reduce the risk of tumours and life threatening problems.

Organic produce also had higher levels of iron and zinc, vital nutrients lacking in many people's diets.

Scroll down for more...





The findings could help settle the long running debate over the health benefits of organic food.

A spokesman for the Food Standards Agency - which has come under fire for insisting that organic produce is no more healthier than conventional food - said it would review the latest study.

The findings come from Prof Carlo Leifert, an expert in organic food whose four year Newcastle University study is funded by the European Union and food companies.

He said the health benefits were so striking that moving to organic food was the equivalent of eating an extra portion of fruit and vegetables every day.

"If you have just 20 per cent more antioxidants in every portion of vegetables, then it's simply a question of maths - eating four portion of organic fruit and vegetables is the equivalent to eating five portions of traditional fruit and vegetables," he said.

"Having said that, eating five portions of organic is even better still."

His team grew fruit and vegetables and reared cows on organic and non-organic sites on a 725 acre farm near at Newcastle University.

They found that levels of antioxidants in milk from organic cattle were between 50 and 80 per cent higher than conventional milk.

Organic wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage, onions and lettuce had between 20 and 40 per cent more nutrients.

Although the study has yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, Prof Leifert is convinced the findings are sound.

He also believes there is enough evidence for the Food Standards Agency to change its advice on organic food and admits to being puzzled why the agency has not already done so.

"I wonder whether it's more to do with politics," he said.

The research suggests that organic fruit and vegetable is healthier because it uses more natural fertiliser such as clover and manure.

"Plants have evolved to get nutrients from organic matter, " he said.

"They need only a small amount early on in the year, and most in the summer. Yet with chemical fertiliser, they get most soon after planting and very little when they need it most."

The study - which runs for another year - found that milk was more nutritious in the summer, when cattle are grazing fresh grass.

"If you feed a cow on grass you get better milk," he said.

"I suspect that because British cattle have so much grass in their diet that nutrient levels may be higher in conventional UK milk than in some imported organic milk."

The Soil Association, which has been embroiled in a decade long dispute with the FSA over the health benefits of organic food, has welcomed the latest research.

There are few signs that the boom in organic food is ending. Sales are growing by 25 per cent each year and shoppers now spend around £2 billion a year on organic produce.

The reasons why organic food is popular vary. Some shoppers buy it for the taste, others to reduce exposure to chemicals.

Organic meat is popular among shoppers concerned about animal welfare.

The Food Standards Agency has ordered a review into its advice on organic food and health benefits. The results are expected in March.

"Until then the advice remains that there is no evidence that organic food has higher levels of nutrients than conventional food," a spokesman said.

The new study shows that organic milk has 60 to 80 per cent more nutrients in the summer than conventional milk, and 50 to 60 per cent more in the winter.

Organic milk also has higher levels of vitamin E.

Organic cheese can have up to twice as many nutrients than conventional varieties.

Organic tomatoes, wheat, potatoes, cabbage, onions and wheat have 20 to 40 per cent more antioxidants than conventional fruit and vegetables.

Organic spinach and cabbage have been found to have more minerals.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... article.do