September 3, 2012

expert reaction to research into the safety and nutritional value of organic food

Researchers writing in the Annals of Internal Medicine reviewed existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods, finding that when it comes to health and nutritional value there is little difference between organic and conventional foods.

Prof Alan Dangour, Senior Lecturer at the Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said:

“The Smith-Spangler paper is a careful and detailed review of reports comparing the nutrient and health-related qualities of organic and conventional foods published since 1966. Like our 2009 review (attached), it again demonstrates that there are no important differences in nutrient content between organic and conventionally produced foods. The Smith-Spangler paper also reviews health benefits of organic foods and like our 2010 review (attached) finds no evidence that organic foods are healthier than conventionally produced foods. The Smith-Spangler paper extends our earlier work by reviewing pesticide and bacterial content of organically and conventionally produced foods and highlights some interesting results.

“However, throughout the paper the authors make it clear that the evidence base is weak and highly variable i.e. there is no consistent signal from the data supporting the nutritional or health-related superiority of organic foods. In general there is a need to strengthen the quality of research and reporting in this area.

“Consumers select organic foods for a variety of reasons, however this latest review identifies that at present there are no convincing differences between organic and conventional foods in nutrient content or health-benefits. Hopefully this evidence will be useful to consumers.”

‘Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?’ by Crystal Smith-Spangler et al., published in Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday 3rd September.