Gosh, here's a shock:
LONDON (Reuters) - Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.
A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.
I wonder how much of that $48 billion is spent by people who really think the stuff is healthier and how much by people who just feel good about being trendy? Guess the recession will sort that out. No matter how cheap you want to be, by the way, I don't recommend you go on a diet of inorganic food.
Comments
Perhaps more careful scrutiny is in order regarding the stated conclusions:
"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.
So just what, according to the authors, constitutes nutritional "relevance" in the matter of public health? Sounds like an excuse for sanctioning subjective (political) criteria and possibly dismissing the environmental degradation that accompanies some large-scale, non-organic industrial farm practices. Besides, the experts consulted probably failed to consider the most important nutritional factor of all: the difference in taste!