Organic farmers reject study as 'selective'

Friday, 31 July 2009 03:43

A study of the benefits of organic produce has concluded that it is scarcely any healthier than other foods.

Organic farmers have criticised the British study as selective.

Scientists at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine spent a year reviewing nutritional research on foods produced normally and under organic standards, which ban artificial fertilisers and other chemicals.

They concluded there was no significant nutritional difference.

But organic farmers said the study downplayed its own findings showing organic food had more vitamins.

Researchers for the British Food Standards Agency searched scientific journals for all reviews of organic and non-organic fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy over the past 50 years. They found 162 relevant studies, 55 of which they considered of "satisfactory quality".

They found no significant difference between organic and non-organic farming for 20 out of 23 nutrients, including vitamin C and iron.

Dr Alan Dangour, who led the study, 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 public health relevance."

Steffan Browning of the New Zealand Soil and Health Association, which represents organic farmers, said the study was "very selective".

It found several nutrients were higher in organic food but downplayed that, he said. Research by Government company GNS Science suggested minerals in organic and non-organic food were different, he added.

The British Soil Association countered by publishing a list of nutritional differences found within the report. The list included findings that organic food has on average 12 per cent more protein, 11 per cent more zinc, 53 per cent more beta carotenes and 7 per cent more magnesium that conventional food.

- ADDITIONAL REPORTING: Independent

(From: nzherald.co.nz, Environment News)