The organic community is tangled up in an international food fight as it reacts to a recent report by the UK’s Food Standards Agency which found organic food to be no healthier than regular grocery-store fare. The report, to be published in the September issue of “The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition” claims that after a “systematic” look at 50 years’ worth of studies, it has found no significant nutritional difference between the two.
Since publishing its findings, the FSA and the public health nutritionist from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine that led the study have come under heavy fire from organic advocates including the Soil Association (UK), the Organic Trade Association (North America), and industry leaders like Gary Hirshberg, “chairman, president and CE-Yo” of Stonyfield Farm Organic Dairy.
Detractors accuse the study of using outdated data and marginalizing the few nutritional benefits it did find as statistically insignificant. Out of 162 studies considered, the final analysis looked at only 55, some of which dated back to 1958, when the health value of some nutrients wasn’t fully understood. The study also excludes the most recent research published after the February 2008 cutoff date.
Of the actual differences recorded by the FSA, organic vegetables contained 53.7 percent more beta-carotene, 38.4 percent more flavonoids, 12.7 percent more proteins and 11.3 percent more zinc than their inorganic counterparts. However, the FSA argues that these differences fall within the margin of error. The Organic Center further alleges that the study failed to measure antioxidants, which two 2007 studies found significantly more plentiful in organic milk and tomatoes.
While organic advocates are challenging the FSA’s methodology, most are also taking issue with its definition of “healthier.” The study limits the definition of health to only nutritional content, failing to address one of the key tenets of organic farming ¾ avoiding synthetic chemicals and pesticides. Regardless of the nutritional difference (or lack thereof), supporters argue that organic produce is healthier in the sense that it perpetuates healthy soil, fair labor conditions and doesn’t put chemicals into the environment or the people eating it.
So far the FSA has staunchly defended the study, though stressing that the findings aren’t intended as an anti-organic message, but a tool to help consumers decide if organic food it worth the extra cost, which the UK’s Times pegs at 60 percent higher than regular food on average.
At the end of he day, the jury is still out on this issue and one report, while causing a stir at the moment, is not going to be the final word. From my very un-scientific perspective, it seems like the high margin of error from looking at 50 years of studies with varying parameters makes this report hardly conclusive. Those shelling out hard-earned dollars on organics should be realistic that it may not be leaps and bounds ahead nutritionally, but there’s still plenty of reasons to buy organic if it meets your definition of “healthier.”
Source: BecauseAction.com
