According to a British review of studies carried out over the past 50-years, food from the organic aisles of grocery stores, does not always spell healthier than that on the rest of the supermarket shelves. In other words, organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food.
Apparently, neither is better in terms of health benefits, if the studies findings are to be believed, as both organic and conventionally produced foods have about the same nutrient content as the other.
Study author Alan Dangour, a registered public health nutritionist with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says, no important differences were found in the nutrient content of organically and conventionally produced foods.
Even so, researchers note organic foods continue to grow in popularity, with the market share for organic foods in the United Kingdom, increasing 22% from 2005 to 2007.
According to the Organic Trade Association, likewise is the case with United States, where the market for organic foods has grown at the rate of 20% each year since 1990, with consumer sales reaching $13.8-billion in 2005, which figure represents 2.5% of total food sales in the country.
The review of 162-studies dealing with the nutrient content of foods found only 55, the researchers considered to be 'satisfactory quality', with no notable differences between conventional and organic crops with regard to vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, zinc and copper content. However, they did find organic crops to have higher levels of phosphorus than conventionally produced crops, which seemed to have higher levels of nitrogen. According to the review, no differences in nutrient content were indicated in the livestock studies.
However, a similar review of the literature conducted by the Oregon-based Organic Centre, a staunch promoter of organic food, yielded similar results to that of the British study, finding higher levels of healthy antioxidants and polyphenols in organic foods, though.
The study will be published in the September issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
More...
Apparently, neither is better in terms of health benefits, if the studies findings are to be believed, as both organic and conventionally produced foods have about the same nutrient content as the other.
Study author Alan Dangour, a registered public health nutritionist with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says, no important differences were found in the nutrient content of organically and conventionally produced foods.
Even so, researchers note organic foods continue to grow in popularity, with the market share for organic foods in the United Kingdom, increasing 22% from 2005 to 2007.
According to the Organic Trade Association, likewise is the case with United States, where the market for organic foods has grown at the rate of 20% each year since 1990, with consumer sales reaching $13.8-billion in 2005, which figure represents 2.5% of total food sales in the country.
The review of 162-studies dealing with the nutrient content of foods found only 55, the researchers considered to be 'satisfactory quality', with no notable differences between conventional and organic crops with regard to vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, zinc and copper content. However, they did find organic crops to have higher levels of phosphorus than conventionally produced crops, which seemed to have higher levels of nitrogen. According to the review, no differences in nutrient content were indicated in the livestock studies.
However, a similar review of the literature conducted by the Oregon-based Organic Centre, a staunch promoter of organic food, yielded similar results to that of the British study, finding higher levels of healthy antioxidants and polyphenols in organic foods, though.
The study will be published in the September issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
More...