Study: Organics no healthier than other foods

A major review of research findings over 50 years has concluded that organic food is neither healthier nor more nutritional than food raised conventionally.

The review of 162 studies, commissioned by Britain's Food Standards Agency , found no differences in most nutrients — including in vitamin C, calcium and iron — from both kinds of crops. The same was true for meat, dairy and eggs.

Some differences were found — nitrogen and phosphorus levels — but the report said were most probably resulted from fertilizers and ripeness at harvest, with no likely benefits.

One big "however": The study, conducted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, did not examine pesticide residue, use of antibiotics or the environmental issues of food grown naturally. That comparison falls to scientists trained in other disciplines.

The findings appear in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Organic producers say the study misses the big point about why consumers are increasingly turning to foods grown without chemicals or drugs.

"We don't dispute what they found. We don't make health claims based on the nutrition of organic food. But we are saying they contain less of the things that might hurt, like chemicals," Laura Telford, national director of Canadian Organic Growers, told The National Post. "You can make credible claims about the benefits of organic food without saying they are nutritionally superior."

Read up on the details from The (London) Telegraph, BBC, Reuters or Los Angeles Times, among others.

The (London) Times asked its readers about whether they think organic food is a waste of money. What do you all think?

Posted by Michael Winter at 07:15 PM/ET, July 29, 2009 in Health/Science, Research

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/20 ... PageReturn