Spot the difference ... the organic garlic is on the right. Photo:
James Davies
Organic food is no better for you than the traditionally grown even
though it may taste better, say researchers.
Despite the perception that organic food grown without artificial
fertilisers, pesticides and other chemicals, is more pure, nutritious and
virtuous, scientists have said there is little evidence that it is healthier.
There are
no convincing differences between organic and conventional foods in nutrient
content or health-benefits
A review of 237 research studies into organic food found the products
were 30 per cent less likely to contain pesticide residue than conventionally
grown fruit and vegetables but were not necessarily 100 per cent free of the
chemicals. They found no consistent differences in the vitamin content of
organic products.
There were higher levels of phosphorus in organically grown food but the
researchers said this was of little importance as so few people were deficient
in this. The only other significant finding was that some studies suggested
organic milk contained higher levels of omega-3 fatty acid, which is thought to
be important for brain development in infants and for cardiovascular health.
Dr Crystal Smith-Spangler, of Stanford's Centre for Health Policy, said
"we were a little surprised" by the results but that people should
eat more fruit and vegetables, no matter how they are grown, because most
Western diets are deficient.
Dr Dena Bravata, a fellow researcher, said that, beyond their perceived
health benefits, people also bought organic products because of taste, concerns
about the effects of conventional farming practices on the environment and
animal welfare. The research was published in the Annals of Internal
Medicine journal.
The group cited two studies comparing children consuming organic and
conventional diets, which found lower levels of pesticide residue in the urine
of children on organic diets, though the levels of pesticides in both groups of
children were below safety thresholds.
Organic chicken and pork also appeared to reduce exposure to
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the researchers said the health implications
of this were not clear. The group said the research was difficult because of
the various ways organic food was tested, other factors that affect nutrient
levels such as soil and weather, and the effect that organic farming methods
may have.
Prof Alan Dangour, a senior lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine, said the review showed that "there are no convincing
differences between organic and conventional foods in nutrient content or
health-benefits".
A spokesman for the Soil Association claimed that the method used by the
researchers was not suitable for comparing crops, while a previous study had
found that the differences in nutrients between organic and conventional
produce were "highly significant". He said a Dutch study, mentioned
in the review, found that children aged two were 36 per cent less likely to
develop eczema, if more than 90 per cent of the dairy products they consumed
were organic.
The Telegraph, London
No comments:
Post a Comment