Organic More Nutritious? Even the Organic Industry Doesn’t Think So!
October 18, 1997
Is organic food more nutritious? The simple answer is no. While some studies have been trumpeted as having finally shown the nutritional superiority of organic foods, other studies of similar crops show either no difference or superiority of conventional produce. Many factors affect nutrient and mineral content of food, especially produce (genetics, sunlight, moisture, pests, harvest date/time of day, time lag from harvest to consumption, etc.). Any differences which may result from the use of organic or conventional farming practices cannot be detected.
But don’t take our word for it. Look at what others have had to say about this question:
– Even the organic foods industry has been forced to admit that their products offer no significant nutritional advantages. Katherine DiMatteo, spokesperson for the U.S. Organic Trade Association, was asked on ABC’s 20/20 (February 4, 2000) whether organic foods were more nutritious than their conventional counterparts. She twice responded that “organic foods are as nutritious as any other product.” Not more nutritious, merely “as nutritious.”
–The Tufts University Health & Nutrition letter (http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/02solutions/10tufts/tuftsqa/organic.htm) answered the question of whether organic is more nutritious this way: “No one knows. The question is a difficult one to study because of all the factors besides farming methods that could affect nutritional quality, including soil type and climate. The evidence from the small body of reliable studies available thus far does not show any significant differences between the nutrient content of organically grown and conventionally grown food.”
–UC Davis nutritionist Dr. Gail Feenstra says, “As much as I’d like to say yes, unfortunately the evidence doesn’t show that it is. The studies are equivocal; there are no definitive studies that show that organic is much better than conventionally-produced produce.”
–Consumer Reports, a magazine that strongly favors organic foods (and has recommended it several times in the past), wrote this after its own evaluation of organic foods Dec. 15, 1997. (available at www.consumerreports.com/Special/News/Reports/9712n001.html): “Yet organic produce tastes no different than ‘conventionally’ grown produce, and any nutritional differences there might be between them are likely so subtle as to evade detection.”
– Canada’s Manitoba Agriculture and Food agency (www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/homeec/cbd03s01.htm) had this to say: “Nutritional value of plants depends on genetics, availability of water, amount of sunlight, maturity when picked, how long it took to come to market and whether it was properly handled and refrigerated. Numerous laboratory tests have not found any substantial nutritional differences in organically and conventionally grown produce.”
–The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/research/researchfund/fs2docs/fs7061.htm): “Various comparisons have been made on the nutrient content of plants and on other components of nutritional quality. Although differences can be found they are not consistent among the different experiments that have been conducted. Varying the soil nutrients or other growing conditions could conceivably produce similar results. There is no conclusive evidence that crops grown organically are either inferior or superior nutritionally. There are major differences between experiments and among crops within the same experiment.”
Dr. Clarence Swanton, professor in the Department of Plant Agriculture at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada says, “There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that I am aware of that [organic food] is nutritionally better for you.”
Posted in Commentary |