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.
