Good news! You can rest assured that the organic food you bought today is every bit as beneficial for you and the planet as it was three days ago. Advantages for health and ecological soundness are still there, despite a review released this week claiming that there is insufficient evidence to prove organic superiority on the nutritional grounds it evaluated.
The work, a review of research completed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and funded by the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency (FSA), was rigorous in its selection of 55 studies from 50 years of nearly 50,000 studies, some of which were conducted before the creation of national organic standards. Unfortunately, it failed to include contemporary research showing organic strengths, and dismisses areas of organic superiority within its reviewed work, including antioxidant capacity (important for cancer-fighting properties).
There is no reason to be less confident in your organic choices.
The study appears to say absolutely nothing negative about organics, despite valiant attempts by the media to create sensational headlines. In the data reviewed, they found that organic food was superior to non-organic food in the measurements of beta-carotene by 53 percent and flavonoids by 38 percent, as well as in the amounts of phenolic compounds, protein, copper, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, sulfur and zinc, all of which are required to foster complete nutrition.
The reviewers also reveal 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.
This review will likely be eclipsed by actual scientific research from a European Union-funded study. Completed in April 2009 and involving 31 research and university institutes, the world awaits the summary statement, to be released later this year. Results from more than 100 papers released so far show that food grown by organic methods contains more of what people want to be healthy, and less of what might harm them. Specifically, organics have:
In March 2008, a team led from the Organic Center published their review of research since 2003, "New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods." The review, which focused on comparing regional, soil, crop, harvest and plant variety similarities, found significant organic benefits in key nutritional components: antioxidants, precursors of vitamins A, C and E, the minerals potassium and phosphorus, total protein and in nitrogen, where lower levels in food are considered to be healthier.
Organic food continues to be the best way to eat to save the world. The FSA study, in the three areas where it found organic food to be more healthful than non-organic food attributed those distinctions to "differences in production methods." I agree. At the Rodale Institute, we've been comparing organic and non-organic practices for nearly three decades, and released a report in 2008 explaining the regenerative capabilities of organic agriculture as a solution to confront global warming. Organic production methods are responsible for fewer pesticides and herbicides in our soils and water, better management of land, and food with little to no risk of doing long-term damage to our planet, its people, and its biodiversity.
You can continue to believe you are making good choices. Continue to demand organic.
Loading comments… 
We are a separate entity from Rodale, Inc., the for-profit publishing company. We have different boards of directors, different governance
If you read my post, at no point did I attack the credibilit
I come from a background of non-organi
The Rodale Institute is offering what science we can to the questions of today. As toxic revelation
Check out some of our work here:
http://www
lff
So the attacks are predictabl
Can't say that Dr. LaSalle would be the first person I would ask for an unbiased opinion of the benefits of organic produce.
lff
Today 58% of the FDA's funding comes from pharmaceut
These same companies often are involved in the chemicals and genetic testing that is associated with crops and livestock. So if the FSA is like the FDA, then the results of this bogus study is no surprise.
First of all organic farming IS convention
Well that's clearly not true. While we can debate the relative nutritiona
So, unless your definition of "saving the planet" involves either somehow coming up with vast amounts of farmland or starving out about a billion people, organic comes up short.
Ironically
Anyone reading this should do themselves a favor and google (or wikipedia) the name Norman Borlaug.
Organic is the way to go- and is the future!
It's too bad that pedestrian thinkers tend to believe that things that appear to be obvious, must be true!
The idea, if nothing else, is that organic foods are not poisoned with pesticides
If you care about your health, get to know your local farmers at the Farmers Market and take home fresh, local, organic food that was just picked that morning. Or better yet, grow some of your own food, for a food miles score of zero! The shorter the distance between the soil and your table, the more nutrients available for your body.
Thanks, Timothy -- good post. Rodale is a wonderful organizati
What's next? "Organic" gas?
"Organic" has been, for some time now, nothing more than a marketing strategy. A buzz word. The meaning, the concept, has completely been lost.
Folks, support community based agricultur
And, please, read those ridiculous labels on all these products before buying into their claims.
Here, for example, are the complete standards from CCOF (Californi
http://www
Here are the organic standards of the national organic standards board:
http://www
As you point out, there are other concerns when it comes to food production
However, a certified organic label does inform the consumer that the production of the food did not contributi
I'll stick to keeping my freedom of choice both financiall
You can use some of that money that you have the freeddom to spend or not.