Personal Injury Law

Study Suggests Organic Food Has No Nutritional Or Health Benefits

By Chrissie Cole

A new report by British researchers suggests organic food has no nutritional or health benefits compared to non-organic food.

What does that mean exactly? Well, you can buy organic food because you feel it tastes better, is safer and more environmentally sound, but you shouldn't buy it for nutritional benefits.

The review didn't address any contaminants or chemical residue connected with different agricultural production methods. One of the main selling points of organic food is the absence of chemical additives.

"The lack of non-organic chemicals and pesticides on organic foods is what the appeal is," Brian Todd, president of the Food Institute, an Elmwood Park, N.J.-based trade association, said in response to the study.

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine researchers analyzed 162 scientific papers published over the last 50 years and found no significant nutritional difference.

"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foods, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors, told Reuters.

"Our review suggests, at this time there is no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."

The study, commissioned by the British government's Food Standards Agency, is published in the current issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. #

Full post as published by InjuryBoard on July 30, 2009 (boomark / email).