Health and Safety Update (August 2009)

Organic Food not Nutritionally Better than Conventionally Produced Food

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have found that there is no evidence that organically produced foods are nutritionally superior to conventionally produced foodstuffs.

The Food Standards Agency commissioned the research as part of its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their food, based on the most up-to-date science.

The researchers found organically and conventionally produced foods to be comparable in their nutrient content. For 10 out of the 13 nutrient categories analysed, there were no significant differences in nutrient content between production methods. Small differences that were detected were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest. It is thought unlikely that consuming these nutrients at the levels reported in organic foods would provide any health benefit.
Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and one of the report's authors, 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. 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. Research in this area would benefit from greater scientific rigour and a better understanding of the various factors that determine the nutrient content of foodstuffs'.
The research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food. A review was not undertaken of the content of contaminants or chemical residues in foods from different agricultural production regimens.