Posted on 07/29/2009 7:16:23 AM PDT by decimon
Systematic review of literature over 50 years finds no evidence for superior nutritional content of organic produce
There is no evidence that organically produced foods are nutritionally superior to conventionally produced foodstuffs, according to a study published today in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Consumers appear willing to pay higher prices for organic foods based on their perceived health and nutrition benefits, and the global organic food market was estimated in 2007 to be worth £29 billion (£2 billion in the UK alone). Some previous reviews have concluded that organically produced food has a superior nutrient composition to conventional food, but there has to-date been no systematic review of the available published literature.
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine have now completed the most extensive systematic review of the available published literature on nutrient content of organic food ever conducted. The review focussed on nutritional content and did not include a review of the content of contaminants or chemical residues in foods from different agricultural production regimens.
Over 50,000 papers were searched, and a total of 162 relevant articles were identified that were published over a fifty-year period up to 29 February 2008 and compared the nutrient content of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. To ensure methodological rigour the quality of each article was assessed. To be graded as satisfactory quality, the studies had to provide information on the organic certification scheme from which the foodstuffs were derived, the cultivar of crop or breed of livestock analysed, the nutrient or other nutritionally relevant substance assessed, the laboratory analytical methods used, and the methods used for statistical analysis. 55 of the identified papers were of satisfactory quality, and analysis was conducted comparing the content in organically and conventionally produced foods of the 13 most commonly reported nutrient categories.
The researchers found organically and conventionally produced foods to be comparable in their nutrient content. For 10 out of the 13 nutrient categories analysed, there were no significant differences between production methods in nutrient content. Differences that were detected were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use (nitrogen, phosphorus), and ripeness at harvest (acidity), and it is unlikely that consuming these nutrients at the levels reported in organic foods would provide any health benefit.
Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and one of the report's authors, comments: 'A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, 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. Research in this area would benefit from greater scientific rigour and a better understanding of the various factors that determine the nutrient content of foodstuffs'.
###
For further information, or to interview any of the report's authors, please contact Gemma Howe in the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Press Office Gemma.howe@lshtm.ac.uk +44 (0) 207 927 2802 / 07828 617 901
Food Standards Agency Press Office +44 (0) 207 276 8888 Emer.timmins@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk
Notes to Editors:
Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review
Authors: Alan D Dangour, Sakhi K Dodhia, Arabella Hayter, Elizabeth Allen, Karen Lock, Ricardo Uauy
External review
An independent expert review panel was constituted to oversee and advise on the conduct of the review. The panel comprised a subject expert, Dr Julie Lovegrove (University of Reading, UK) and an expert in public health nutrition with systematic review experience, Professor Martin Wiseman (University of Southampton UK and World Cancer Research Fund International, UK).
Funding
The study was commissioned and funded by the UK Food Standards Agency. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation or writing of the report. The review team held six progress meetings with the funder. The corresponding author had full access to all the data and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
>> Your posts are generally “in your face” type. I came on this thread to discuss the topic with like-minded posters, not to trade insults with you.
Please answer me this question: who posted first on this thread? Me to you? Or you to me?
It’s an easy one. It’s not a matter of opinion, and there are only two possible answers.
Which one was it?
The “organically” grown ones only make it to half that size and produce about half the volume. And people live the same on either one, except there are just much more of the evil “Man-made” kind.
Check my post #15.
bttt
We try to support the organic producers, primarily because we do not like ingesting nerve agents, growth hormones, and antibiotics. It is very hard to grow certain food organically, so we don’t mind paying a premium so that those farmers who take the risk of bringing organic food stuffs to to market can continue. Examining nutrient content without addressing contamination from these other nonfood substances is a convenient way to belittle the organic food movement. Organic certification is another issue, one that is hurting the little farmers and keeping them out of the market.
Totally worthless, then. That's the reason people eat organic. Duh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.