New York – Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.
A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.
“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,” said Alan Dangour, one of the report’s authors.
“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.”
The results of research, which was commissioned by the British government’s Food Standards Agency, were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Sales of organic food have fallen in some markets, including Britain, as recession has led consumers to cut back on purchases.
The Soil Association said in April that growth in sales of organic products in Britain slowed to just 1.7 percent in 2008, well below the average annual growth rate of 26 percent over the last decade, following a plunge in demand at the end of the year.
This is a total conspiracy! Organic fruits and vegetables are definitely healthier and more nutrient dense than non organic…. I am a nutritionist and very involved and educated in this issue. I also live on it and besides for being common sense (harmful chemicals are sprayed several times on conventional produce), it also has enhanced my overall wellbeing…..
You should have written “BRITAIN” instead of NY, because the study is from Britain, using British soil, and I would deem it not relevant to America. The industry is messing around with G-d’s produce, i.e. tomatoes, corn, potatoes, herbs, milk, to name a few. Organic foods are cleaner, healthier, and taste a whole lot better than the regularly handled. Those who eat them understand. 🙂
Totally ‘paid-for’ science. Chemical pesticides, fungicides and other chemicals, not to mention genetically-modified foods – with ‘built-in’ pesticides, are poisoning not only us, but future generations. They’ve apparently picked and carefully chosen what to test here and what not to test.
WHH
What researchers fail to consider is the reason why people prefer organic food; it simply tastes better. Peaches taste like peaches, rice tastes like rice. the overuse of pesticides and chemical fertilizers significantly reduces the taste of food particularly in fruits and vegetables, not to mention the harvesting of under-ripe crops and the use of cold storage. All of these practices used by growers reduce the flavor of food until it becomes almost inedible. Organic growers however, allow the food to ripen on its own, do not use pesticides, cold storage or other preserving techniques before bringing their produce to open market. Using organic food is fine and healthy, just don’t make a religion out of it.
Besides which, organic encompasses foods which are not GMO – genetically modified. Who in their right mind would put genetically altered foods into their bodies?!
Food is food, unlesss you’re a cow, then grass is food
well i was buying organic–but all produce was INFESTED with bugs…so ill take pesticides please!
its for sure as healthy as it is expenive
When I eat organic, it’s not because of more nutrients, it’s because of less chemicals!
total nonsense and a waste of time and money! organic food is for suckers and enviromentlist and look like the people who eat them!
Something I always knew! Total waste of time and money! organic food is for suckers and enviromentlist. They look like the people who eat them!
“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.”
That may be true. But it’s also true that organic produce does not get foreign substances such as pesticides added to it.
Put another way, grape juice is not any more nutritious than, say, a mix of mercury and that same amount of grape juice. But grape juice without mercury is likely a far healthier alternative.
WHH
What is interesting about this “Study” is that it was “commissioned by the British Governments Food Standards Agency…” It leaves one wondering about who petitioned the agency to perform the review. second interesting point is that the agency actually performed no independent research of its own but merely reviewed 162 already existing papers on the subject, papers that one has no idea who wrote them and why in the first place. Might the agency have taken the articles that supported a pre-existing conclusion? I am quite sure there are many more scientific articles that support the opposite findings.The quote from this article reads as follows, “…a systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference…” Clearly The United Kingdom is concerned about the peoples response to carte blanche tactics used by farmers in the U.K. and the special protections Britain awards its farming industry. Is anyone also aware that the future King of England is a tremendous advocate of Organic green farming, and disburses a tremendous amount of his own personal funds to study and practice the various methods of Green farming? Interesting how something with the stamp of government agencies rarely receives the critical review to which it is so deserving. Remember that government agencies also gave the stamp of approval to DDT, Alar, and other known genetic mutagens and carcinogenic substances to be used freely on the food we eat. How can we trust any regulatory body to provide a truthful finding? Have they ever admitted their own lethal mistakes?
“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,” said Alan Dangour, one of the report’s authors.”
So they do agree that there are nutritional differences between organic and nonorganic, but nevertheless conclude they are “unlikely” to impact public health. I disagree. Even if organic is only “slightly” more nutrient dense, over the long run it’s still healthier! Other studies have shown the vitamin and mineral content to be significantly better in organic produce.