Organic food study focuses on wrong ‘benefit’
| July 29, 2009 | 12:34 PM
More journal entries from Cindy House »
As far as nutrition is concerned, organic food is not any better than conventionally grown food, British researchers said in a study published Wednesday in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The study, funded and commissioned by the British government, reviewed 13 different food crops and found no significant nutrient differences in 10 of them. For the other three, the nutrients were affected by fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest but were deemed unlikely to offer any health benefit. Thus, the conclusion was that people who are paying more for organic food to get better nutrition are essentially wasting their money.
However, the nutrient issue has already been acknowledged by the organic food industry.
Instead, they say health benefits from organic food come primarily from the lack of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that potentially could linger on food and harm the consumer. There’s also the matter of taste — many people feel organic food tastes better than conventionally grown – which was not examined in the British study.
Add in the environmental benefits of not using chemicals and the economic benefits of patronizing local farmers, and you have a pretty compelling case for going organic, assuming your budget will allow it.
And if it doesn’t, you can at least rest assured that you’re not shortchanging yourself nutritionally.
nutrition, organic food, research
