FSA attacks organic again! 31 July

There are at least two major contradictions that reveal the clearly biased attitude of this research as noted below. (1) The researchers admit to finding limited evidence but claim there is NO evidence. (2) They claim that pesticides was not in their remit and that they focused exclusively on nutrition but go on to say that the second half of their study looks for evidence of health benefits of eating organic food. Death or sickness from pesticides is certainly a health consideration.

Organic food report admits to lack of evidence Ecologist 29th July, 2009http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/294394/organic_food_report_admits_to_lack_of_evidence.html

FSA review dismisses health benefits of eating organic but admits to a lack of research on which to base findingsOrganic food is not healthier or more nutritious than conventionally produced food, according to a review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).Looking at 50 years of published studies, researchers said there was not enough evidence to prove any additional health or nutritional benefits to consumers from eating organic.'This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food,' said FSA director of consumer choice Gill Fine.'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.'

Sky: No, not at all. You can’t claim that there is not enough evidence to make a decision and in the same breath turn around and make the decision that there is no nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food.

“Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.” Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit.

FSA’s Review document“the current evidence base was, 'extremely limited both in terms of the number of studies and the quality of studies found'. “

Sky: There is a huge difference between NO evidence and LIMITED evidence. This statement clearly reveals the bias of the reports.

“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.”
Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health

Sky: They should get their stories straight before publishing. Dr. Langour from the research unit claims “NO” evidence, the FSA claims “little or no.”

The LSHTM researchers conclude, quite rightly:”‘It should be noted that these conclusions relate to the evidence base currently available, which contains limitations in the design and in the comparability of studies… Examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.’Unfortunately, somewhere between the academic’s pen and the enthusiastic keyboard of the FSA press office, this important, guarded and measured conclusion got lost.Instead, we are likely to see the headline ‘Organic No Better For You’ plastered across the world’s newsstands tomorrow, when in fact this study says no such thing.What those newsstands should read is: ‘Buck Your Ideas Up, Food Scientists – There’s Work To Be Done…’” Ecologist Editor’s
Bloghttp://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/bloggers/the_editors_blog/294396/fsa_organics_study_read_it_closely.html

Lack of researchResearchers could only identify 11 studies relating to the health content of organic food and admitted the current evidence base was, 'extremely limited both in terms of the number of studies and the quality of studies found'.They found more studies on nutritional content but said, 'examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.

'The Soil Association, the leading voice of the organic sector in the UK, said the FSA failed to include the results from a major EU-funded study which found higher levels of 'nutritionally desirable compounds' in organic crops.They also criticised the FSA for ignoring the issue of pesticide residues and their possible long-term effect on human health.An FSA spokeswoman said the study was done in response to consumer confusion over the possible nutritional benefits of eating organic and that pesticide contamination was not in the review's remit.Sky: The quote below comes from the FSA’s Review document and utterly contradicts the statement above.

Avoidance of pesticides is definitely a health benefit.“This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food.”Useful links

FSA Organic Review http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organicSee alsoEditor's blog: FSA organic study: read it closely

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/bloggers/the_editors_blog/294396/fsa_organics_study_read_it_closely.htmlOrganic review publishedWednesday 29 July 2009

http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic

An independent review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) shows that there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food. The focus of the review was the nutritional content of foodstuffs.Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health, said: ‘Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat. 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.'The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food. We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence.’The study, which took the form of a ‘systematic review of literature’, was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). LSHTM’s team of researchers, led by Alan Dangour, reviewed all papers published over the past 50 years that related to the nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food. This systematic review is the most comprehensive study in this area that has been carried out to date.The FSA commissioned this research as part of its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their food, based on the most up-to-date science.This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food. A paper reporting the results of the review of nutritional differences has been peer-reviewed and published today by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, 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. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.’Related linksFirst review: Organic nutrient content review and appendices Read the report by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit(pdf 1MB)Organic food More information about organic foodSecond review: Organic health effects review Read the report by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit(pdf 333KB)