There are no particular health or nutritional benefits to choosing organic produce and meat over conventionally produced food, said the UK’s Food Standards Agency. The agency conducted a yearlong study in which it reviewed 162 scientific papers published over the last 50 years, and found that a “small number” of nutritional differences existed between the two types of food, but the differences were “unlikely to be of any public health relevance.”
Conventional food producers, who have long maintained that organic had no advantages over its product besides snob appeal, were no doubt overjoyed. Meanwhile, consumers who spent an estimated $48 billion on organic food in 2007, are both put out and confused. Were they wasting their money all this time?
No, say study critics, who point out that the FSA ignored significant differences in vitamins and minerals between organic and conventional produce. Beta-carotene, for example, was found to be as much as 53 percent higher in organic produce, which the agency apparently discounts as unimportant.
Even more distressing is the fact that the FSA’s report failed to take into account the environmental damage wrought by chemical fertilizers and pesticides, as well as the potential health problems caused by pesticide residues on food. After all, you can take a vitamin pill to get all the beta-carotene you need, but you can’t remove toxins from the body once they’ve already caused damage. And since children are at more risk from pesticide residue than adults for a variety of reasons, that organic apple starts to look a lot more appealing, no matter what the FSA says.