Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Organic vs. Local: Which Food Is Best?

Organic food supporters have defended the benefits of naturally grown produce after a report suggested there are no significant health advantages from consuming it.

In a study published in a US journal week, researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found there were no major differences between organic and conventionally produced food.

“A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock,” said Alan Dangour, principal author of the study.

“But these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance.”

And he added: “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.”

Organic food, devoid of additives and produced without chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides, has become an increasingly popular choice on supermarket shelves in recent years.

But it is typically more expensive than regular foodstuffs, and as such has already been hit by the global recession.

The study, commissioned by Britain’s Food Standards Agency and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, threatens to deal a new blow to the organic food lobby.

But its supporters underlined other benefits of organic produce, notably for the environment.


Organic Food Not Healthier, British Researchers Find – Jakarta Globe

‘No evidence’ organic foods more nutritious: study – The National Post

It's wrong to believe that nature is always best –

Organic vs. Local: Which Food Is Best? - Livescience