Saturday Quack – “Organic” Isn’t Necessarily Healthier

Maybe it depends where you live? A British study, commissioned by the UK government, found that, although there’s a growing consumer demand for organically produced foods, there’s no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs.  The report is published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The researchers found 52,000 articles on the topic, of which 162 concerned studies of the nutrient content of different food types. There were only 55, however, of what the researchers considered ‘satisfactory quality’ to allow conclusions to be drawn, based on the results. There were no differences noted between conventional and organic crops with regard to vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, zinc, and copper content. And there were no differences noted in livestock studies from conventional or organic sources.

Critics have pointed out that the report ignores possible side-effects from pesticides that are banned under the organic-farming approach. However, others believe this practice allows easier contamination of the resultant foodstuff with infectious organisms, so the ‘safety’ angle may be a wash.

There’s no doubt that sales of organic foods have skyrocketed in the US in the last 10 years or so, topping $23 billion last year. And remember that although this was a British study, it was based on articles culled from the world scientific literature. So if you buy organic food because you think it’s more nutritious, think again. Regular food is cheaper and just as nutritious.