Organic food is not necessarily healthier

Organic food is no healthier than conventionally produced food, an independent review by the Food Standards Agency(FSA) has found.

The findings show that there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits of organic food. The focus of the review was the nutritional content of foodstuffs.

Gill Fine, FSA director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health, explained more: "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."

The study, which took the form of a 'systematic review of literature', was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). LSHTM's team of researchers, led by Alan Dangour, reviewed all papers published over the past 50 years that related to the nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food.

The FSA said this systematic review is the most comprehensive study in this area that has been carried out to date.

But the Soil Association called it disappointing. Peter Melchett, policy director commented: "We are disappointed in the conclusions the researchers have reached. The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences."

Words: Clare Riley

« Back to previous page