The 50 year study found little difference in nutritional value between organic and ordinary food

The Food Standards Agency has discovered there is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of health benefits from eating organic produce, in the world’s largest study into organic produce. The study will be a huge blow to the booming organic food industry where Britons spend more than £2billion a year. The Soil Association – Britain’s biggest certifier of organic produce – has criticized the study saying the study ignored possible side-effects from pesticides and that organic farming may be better for the welfare of livestock. 

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine carried out the study for the Food Standards Agency and looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years. 55 studies were included in the final analysis and showed small differences in nutrition between organic and conventional food, but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.

Gill Fine, the Food Standards Agency director of consumer choice and dietary health, said ‘ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us to make informed choices about the food we at. This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.’