FSA Organic Review Falls Short

By Jason Ball

This week the Food Standards Agency published data that shows many Organic foods are richer in nutrients compared to conventional foods - and then it told us that the superior quality is 'not important'!

Facts the FSA will not face

Here are some of the data the FSA has published - and also dismissed! Comparing Organic to non-organic food, the FSA study found Organic foods had this much more of the following:

NUTRIENTS > % HIGHER IN ORGANIC FOODS

Protein > 12.7%
Beta-carotene > 53.6%
Flavonoids > 38.4%
Copper > 8.3%
Magnesium > 7.1%
Phosphorous > 6%
Potassium > 2.5%
Sodium > 8.7%
Sulphur > 10.5%
Zinc > 11.3%
Phenolic compounds > 13.2%

The researchers also found higher levels of beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acids in organic meat and dairy products (between 2.1% - 27.8% higher) compared to non-organic meat and dairy.

Bias

what is better than a plate of tasty food? a plate of tasty organic food! This is not the first time that the agency has appeared to be biased against Organic. Repeatedly it promotes GM foods, which relies on industrial farming models, and threatens the genetic integrity of ecological production systems and market standards.

In 2007 when Professor Carlo Leifert of Newcastle University found better nutrient levels in Organic food - the FSA's only responded by saying that it was reviewing the available evidence.

Apparently this week's publication is that review, and yet it misses out some of the latest science. It also clearly contradicts its own statements within the report. One one hand, the FSA says that higher levels of vitamins and minerals are found in Organic food, as shown in several studies, and on the other hand, it dismisses the evidence as unimportant.

Under fire

Statements by the FSA have attracted criticism from food campaigners. The perhaps otherwise dull research has hit the headlines because it flies in the face of what is known about the nutritional benefits of Organic food and the broader environmental benefits gained from eco-friendly production methods. Pollution by pesticides is high on the agenda of many buyers.

Peter Kindersley at Sheepdrove Organic Farm said, "In considering the nutritional value of food, this report failed to examine the effect of pesticides. We know the government's own research revealed a shocking level of contamination in conventional food. Does the FSA think that pesticides are also irrelevant to Public Health?"

"Resarch in the USA has revealed that babies in the womb are polluted with pesticides that we were supposed to be rid of by now, such as DDT which was banned decades ago, yet still haunts our health today."

Joanna Blythman, in the Daily Mail, wrote: "The FSA was meant to be an organisation for improving our food. Now it is just getting in the way."

"If it has any genuine interest in nutrition, the Food Standards Agency would be supporting a shift away from intensification, not pushing for more of it." (Daily Mail 30 July 2009)

Nutritional benefits have 'no relevance'

Somewhat mysteriously, the FSA had the review done by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).

Dr Alan Dangour, who led the study, said: "A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally-produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance.

"We found broadly that there was no important difference between organic and conventional produce."

FSA ignored latest science

Soon to be published in full, the research of the Quality Low-Input Food programme will directly conflict with this week's FSA review, and will force them to think again!

Funded by £12 million in EU money over 4 years (a budget 100 times larger than the FSA review) the QLIF report says:

The results showed that organic food production methods resulted in (a) higher levels of nutritionally desirable compounds (e.g., vitamins/antioxidants and poly-unsaturated fatty acids such as CLA and omega-3) and (b) lower levels of nutritionally undesirable compounds such as heavy metals, mycotoxins, pesticide residues and glyco-alkaloids in a range of crops and/or milk. In the case of milk, nutritionally desirable compounds were up to 70 pct higher in organic samples.

Research filtered out

Peter Melchett, Policy Director at the Soil Association, pointed out that the LSHTM limited their scope with research quality criteria, which meant that dozens of research papers were ignored:

"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences. This was because these studies did not meet particular criteria fixed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

"Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods."

Sheepdrove Organic Farm