Research shows organically-grown food is safer and healthier, insists Soil Association

Internal links

EU survey finds half of French food has residues of pesticide

The organic food lobby launched a scathing attack on the Food Standards Agency on Monday for claiming that there is no scientific evidence to justify claims that organic produce is safer and healthier than conventional food.

The Soil Association, which certifies organic food and farmers, says in a report on food and human health that the FSA was wrong to claim, as it did a year ago, that people are being fooled into believing that organic food is healthier.

Research commissioned by the Soil Association into more than 400 studies published in scientific literature has demonstrated "significant differences" between organically grown food and non-organic food, Patrick Holden, the director of the association, said.

He said: "There is indicative evidence suggesting nutritional differences between organic and non-organic food. More research is needed ... but if the indications of the available evidence are confirmed, there could be major implications for public health.

"This report contradicts Sir John Krebs, the head of the FSA, who said last year that there was not enough information available to be able to say that organic food is nutritionally different from non-organic food."

Sir John said in September last year that an investigation by the agency had failed to find evidence to support the view that organic produce was either safer or better for the consumer. "They're not getting value for money, in my opinion and in the opinion of the FSA, if they think they're buying food with extra nutritional quality or extra safety. We don't have the evidence to support those claims," he said.

The Soil Association report, compiled by Shane Heaton, a nutritionist, does not prove that organic food is healthier, but points to studies that indicate it may be better.

Sales of organic food have soared by 40 per cent a year in Britain, with turnover reaching £546m last year and expected to top £1bn by 2002. The growth is largely a result of people believing organic food is better for them and their children.

The Soil Association report says: "Until now, this perception that organically grown food is 'better for you' appears to have been largely based on intuition rather than conclusive evidence. Until now, reviews of the relevant scientific literature have painted an inconclusive picture, highlighting the contrasts and contradictions between research results."

Mr Heaton said that his review broke new ground by investigating the methodologies of many studies and throwing out those he judged to have "fundamental flaws". He said: "Once these flawed studies are discarded and a wider consideration of food quality is included, the remaining robust and reliable scientific data reveals a clearer picture."

The Soil Association argues that organic food contains higher levels of nutrients, minerals and vitamins, and lower levels of potentially harmful substances, such as hydrogenated fats and phosphoric acid, when compared to non-organic food. The report claims, for example, that two scientific reviews examining 35 separate studies have shown that organic vegetables are far less likely to contain pesticide residues than non-organic vegetables.

The association points to worrying levels of pesticides in non-organic fruit and vegetables. "According to the latest available figures, nearly half [48 per cent] of all fruit and vegetables tested in the UK in 1999 contained detectable pesticide residues, as did 28.6 per cent of all foods tested," it says.

Although studies have shown that organic food is not totally free of pesticide contamination, the question at the heart of the debate is whether the relatively small amounts involved have any significant impact on human health.

The Soil Association and the FSA agree that more research is needed to assess the health implications of mixing residues from a number of different pesticides, which can be present on organic and non-organic food.

The FSA said: "[The report] doesn't make a convincing case that there is any significant difference between organic and conventionally produced food. Clearly further research is necessary." The Soil Association met with the FSA last week to discuss the report. Mr Heaton said that he asked the agency for the evidence on which it had based its dismissive conclusions. "We don't actually know what scientific literature the FSA has looked at. They said they looked at informed opinion in the building," he said.

A spokeswoman for the FSA said that the agency had taken into account about 30 published studies it considered relevant to answering the question about whether there are any health benefits in organic food.