Organic food provides no nutritional or health benefits - FSA

In a conclusion that has provoked the ire of the organic movement, the agency says there are ‘no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits’ from organic foods.

This is based on an independent review it commissioned, the main focus of which was the nutritional content of foodstuffs.

Gill Fine, FSA director of consumer choice and dietary health, said: ‘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.”

She insisted the agency was ‘neither pro nor anti organic food’ but ‘supported consumer choice’.

“We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence,” she said.

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). FSA said this the review was the ‘most comprehensive study in this area that has been carried out to date’.

Research leader, LSHTM’s Alan Dangour 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 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.”

But Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett condemned the research. “We are disappointed in the conclusions the researchers have reached,” he said.

He said the review rejected ‘almost all’ existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences because they did not meet the criteria fixed LSHTM.

“Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not ‘important’, due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.

The researchers also found higher levels of beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acids in organic meat and dairy products compared to non-organic meat and dairy.

The association also expressed disappointment that the results of a major EU-funded study was not included.

It concluded that levels of a range of ‘nutritionally desirable compounds’ were shown to be higher in organic crops’, while levels of ‘nutritionally undesirable compounds’  were shown to be lower.

Have your say

Please do not complete the following form field for security reasons.

Name

E-mail

Comment

Post as

Anonymously

Display name