Post by Calcasieu on Jul 29, 2009 18:11:03 GMT -5
www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23725592-details/article.do?ito=newsnow&
Organic food ‘no healthier’ blow
Sophie Goodchild, Health Editor
Organic produce is no better for health than conventional food, the Government's Food Standards Agency announced today.
Their report, after a 12-month study based on 50 years of research, says the benefits of chemical-free vegetables, fruit and meat have been overstated.
The findings could be a major blow to the £2billion-a-year organic food industry which has been hit by the recession.
Consumer group Which? said shoppers may now think twice about buying more expensive organic food.
The findings are based on the first comprehensive review into the nutrient value of organic food compared with food grown through conventional farming methods.
The FSA commissioned the study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. More than 100 types of food were studied including rice, chicken, milk and eggs.
The review, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found small but not “important” differences between the nutrient content of organic and conventional types of food.
Public health nutritionist Dr Alan Dangour, who led the review, said: “This is the first time all this evidence has been brought together under one single study. Organic food is no worse than conventional but there is certainly no reason for suggesting organic food has a superior nutritional content.
“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.
“There is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content.”
Organic food ‘no healthier’ blow
Sophie Goodchild, Health Editor
Organic produce is no better for health than conventional food, the Government's Food Standards Agency announced today.
Their report, after a 12-month study based on 50 years of research, says the benefits of chemical-free vegetables, fruit and meat have been overstated.
The findings could be a major blow to the £2billion-a-year organic food industry which has been hit by the recession.
Consumer group Which? said shoppers may now think twice about buying more expensive organic food.
The findings are based on the first comprehensive review into the nutrient value of organic food compared with food grown through conventional farming methods.
The FSA commissioned the study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. More than 100 types of food were studied including rice, chicken, milk and eggs.
The review, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found small but not “important” differences between the nutrient content of organic and conventional types of food.
Public health nutritionist Dr Alan Dangour, who led the review, said: “This is the first time all this evidence has been brought together under one single study. Organic food is no worse than conventional but there is certainly no reason for suggesting organic food has a superior nutritional content.
“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.
“There is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content.”