There is a wave of news stories just now being released which cite a study conducted by researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicine and commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which make the claim that a collection of scientific papers published over the last 50 years show that organics offer no superior nutritional benefits to conventional foods.
The Soil Association finds serious flaws in the study.
"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. For example, the mean positive difference between the following nutrients, when comparing organic to non-organic food, was found in the FSA study to be:
- Protein 12.7%
- Beta-carotene 53.6%
- Flavonoids 38.4%
- Copper 8.3%
- Magnesium 7.1%
- Phosphorous 6%
- Potassium 2.5%
- Sodium 8.7%
- Sulphur 10.5%
- Zinc 11.3%
- Phenolic compounds 13.2%
The researchers also found higher levels of beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acids in organic meat and dairy products (between 2.1% - 27.8% higher) compared to non-organic meat and dairy.
The Soil Association is also disappointed that the FSA failed to include the results of a major European Union-funded study involving 31 research and university institutes and the publication, so far, of more than 100 scientific papers, at a cost of 18million Euros, which ended in April this year.
There was also a glaring omission in the FSA-funded study.
Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health. In 2006 the European Commission said that "long-term exposure to pesticides can lead to serious disturbances to the immune system, sexual disorders, cancers, sterility, birth defects, damage to the nervous system and genetic damage."
Organic farming and food systems are holistic, and are produced to work with nature rather than to rely on oil-based inputs such as fertilisers. Consumers who purchase organic products are not just buying food which has not been covered in pesticides (the average apple may be sprayed up to 16 times with as many as 30 different pesticides) they are supporting a system that has the highest welfare standards for animals, bans routine use of antibiotics and increases wildlife on farms.
Winning the news cycle means winning the headline battle, where facts are relegated to the fine print in the best case scenarios. It appears that the headline battle is shaping up to be a one-sided affair. Here are the top five headlines that showed up for this story in response to a Google News search:
- Study finds organics don't give extra nutrition (ABC Online)
- 'Organic nosh not healthier' (The Sun)
- Organic food is no healthier than other produce, scientists say (New Zealand Herald)
- Organic food isn't any more nutritious (Globe and Mail)
- Study: Organics no healthier than other foods (USA Today)
Call me a cynic, but this gives the strong vibe of a shot across the bow in a PR war.
I will attempt to get some more insight into what is going on behind the scenes here. If and/or when I have more to report, I will plan to keep you informed.
Related Reading:
Cheetos Vs. Carrots: (Not) Fighting to Feed Kids Healthy Food
Food for Thought While You Drink Your Coffee and Eat Your Cereal This Morning
Get Celsias Headlines on Twitter—Celsiastweets
