A Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature

Introduction

Organically certified products are important. Methods of organic production are the gold standard of the food and farming industry. Their sales have grown from £20m to £2,000m in the last 10 years. They now represent 2% of all grocery sales. But organic production, from farm to fork, is not easy. Not only have organic sales suffered during the recession, but organic foods have now come under attack from the Food Standards Agency for not being able to prove nutritional superiority vs industrial foods. The FSA report above was published on 29^th July 2009.

Some more impulsive media commentators have hastily grabbed at the chance to create headlines, particularly during the quiet months of the summer. Others have, once again, predicted the death of the organic movement. But from what we can see at the Organic Trade Board, the people who run the companies producing organic products are tough, resilient, innovative and positive about the future.

Despite some setbacks on sales, we firmly believe that the sector will come through this recession with our strength and public support intact. With the benefit of my 20 years working with organic food, the death of organic production has been constantly predicted and much exaggerated. As always, we’re still here, working away, campaigning for and creating better quality goods, leading public opinion, and producing what the public wants to buy.

Below is our simple Q&A on the FSA report, with our view on the truth behind the headlines.

Lizzie Vann

Chair

Organic Trade Board

What does the report say about the nutritional differences between organic and non organic foods?

Almost all of the differences in the nutrients the FSA looked at were positive for organic food. They rejected some as not statistically significant, and all the figures were buried in Appendix 12 of the 220 page report.

The mean positive difference between the following nutrients, when comparing organic to non-organic food, in the full list of studies that the researchers looked at were found to be: -

Beta-carotene              53.6%

Flavonoids                 38.4%

Phenolic compounds   13.2%

Protein                         12.7%

Zinc                         11.3%

Sulphur                        10.5%

Sodium                         8.7%

Copper                         8.3%

Magnesium               7.1%

Phosphorous                6.0%

Potassium                 2.5%

The researchers also found 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.

Peter Melchett of the Soil Association believes that the FSA did several things which introduced greater variability into their data, for example including ‘shopping basket’ studies, known for particularly variable results. So although they mostly found positive differences in the nutrients they looked at in organic food, they rejected most of them as too variable to be statistically significant.

That still left a small number of positive differences in the nutrients in organic compared to non-organic food, which the FSA’s researchers could not dismiss as statistically insignificant. This was not mentioned in the main part of report (220 pages in all), but was buried in Appendix 12. The researchers simply decided, in their opinion, that the statistically significant results were not ‘important’. ‘No important differences’ was the result they announced, and that is what made the newspaper headlines.

Was the FSA right to publish their work when they did? Was it comprehensive enough?

It appears that the Food Standards Agency rushed to put out their review in advance of a larger review conducted by the European Union, covering a much greater range or research. Some of the papers to be included in this future review, called QLIF, have been seen by the Soil Association and others, as they were presented at QLIF’s final conference in April this year. Of these, several papers look at the substantial and positive nutritional differences between organic and non-organic milk, and other foods, and for the first time explain why these differences occur.

It appears that the QLIF study will be generally positive about organic foods both because of enhanced ‘positive’ benefits and the absence of ‘negative aspects’ of industrial foods such as heavy metals and pesticides.

Why didn’t the FSA wait to include this work if it wanted a comprehensive review?

We would hesitate to imply that the FSA is using spoiling tactics, but independent commentators such as Michael Skapinker of the Financial Times have suggested that the FSA’s arguments for why they published before this larger study came out are ‘unconvincing’.

Surely if the FSA publishes reviews, they are definitive, fair and well thought through?

Peter Mechett of the Soil Association believes that the FSA are neither neutral nor disinterested in the arguments about whether or not organic foods are better than industrial foods.

The only independent review of the FSA itself, carried out by someone they picked, said that they were seen as not having kept to science when it came to their comments on both organic and GM food. They were seen as being unreasonably biased against organic, and pro-GM.

When the FSA undertakes research which affects food and farming they usually consult relevant companies and their representatives to discuss their plans in advance. Whenever possible they aim to work in cooperation with food businesses. This never happens with organic companies.

The FSA launched this research without talking to anyone in the organic movement. When the Soil Association pointed out that their timing meant that results from an extensive programme of new EU research looking at organic and non-organic (the QLIF review) would be too late for inclusion, they ignored their concerns. The fact is that FSA timed their review of organic so that it excluded almost all the results of the largest ever publicly funded research project on organic food and farming.

How important is nutrition when we consider food quality?

We know that the nutritional content of food has dropped significantly over the last 60 years. Food manufacturers are queuing up to solve the problem by adding nutrients to highly processed food made from cheap ingredients. But farmers could produce more nutritious food, using older varieties and breeds, or new varieties and breeds developed for taste and nutrition, not just yield. This it the route favoured by organic farmers and many others in the farming industry, but ignored by the FSA and big food businesses. The FSA’s report ignored most of what is important about how food is produced, and therefore devalues the role that farming plays in producing good, healthy food.

Why is organic different?

Organic companies choose to produce great products in difficult circumstances

· With an external certification company auditing their work,

· Working through a known supply chain, which usually is more costly than purchasing ingredients from an open market

· Without the easy-win yield boosters of growth hormones, fertilisers and pesticides,

· Without the simple formula of selling cheaply by buying cheaply or being the lowest cost producer.

Despite all this, organic companies compete and thrive – because they produce goods that the public wants to buy.

What about commentator’s criticisms that organic products are too complicated to understand?

The public are not stupid. They may be used to single-line slogans from industrial food producers without much to offer. But the benefits of organic cannot be summed up in a short soundbite. And the public understands that.

Organic foods promote health and nutrition – from a food system that avoids the use of pesticides, synthetic growth hormones and antibiotics while building healthy soil and protecting natural resources.

We believe that organic food is both safer (because farmers avoid the use of synthetic toxins, because they avoid routine use of antibiotics on farm animals, and because organic systems allow far fewer food additives to be used) and nutritionally superior (because foods are reared or produced to a natural lifecycle, from soil that is replenished using composts rather than basic 3-molecule fertilisers.). For the same reasons, organic food often tastes better. And organic farmers farm in a more responsible manner, preserving hedgerows and natural habitats and farming in a way that does not damage the environment to the extent that industrial farming does.

ENDS