Row over Food Standards Agency report on organic food rumbles on
LONDON/STROUD/BRISTOL (NNA) – The British Food Standards Agency (FSA) has been stung into defending itself against criticism from organic and biodynamic organisations which have challenged the conclusions of a review, published last week, of the nutritional differences between organic and conventionally produced food.
The study concluded that that there were no important differences in terms of nutrition content between both types of food, nor any additional health benefits in organic food.
The organic organisations say the report was too narrow in scope, contradictory and failed to take all the evidence into account.
The review was commissioned by the FSA and carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance as well as at the health benefits of eating organic food.
In an open letter to “interested parties” published yesterday (Friday), Tim Smith, the chief executive of the FSA, sought to emphasise the validity of the independent study. “This review was commissioned by us to ensure that our position on organic food is up to date and reflects the weight and balance of current scientific evidence,” Smith wrote.
Pesticides had been specifically excluded from the scope of this work because “our position on the safety of pesticides is already clear: pesticides are rigorously assessed and their residues are closely monitored” and therefore did not pose an unacceptable risk to human health.
The report had been extensively peer reviewed before publication by leading scientists in this field and was published by a leading nutrition journal. “The Agency has complete confidence in the validity of the work carried out by the LSHTM,” the letter said.
“Irresponsible interpretation of the review by some has resulted in misleading claims being made concerning higher levels of some nutrients found in organic food,” Smith in turn criticised the FSA’s critics.
“The important message from this report is not that people should avoid organic food but that they should eat a healthy balanced diet and, in terms of nutrition, it doesn’t matter if this is made up of organic or conventionally produced food,” the letter ended.
But the Biodynamic Agricultural Association (BDAA), which certifies biodynamic produce under the Demeter label, was strongly critical of the scope and conclusions of the review: “It is no surprise that a straightforward nutrient analysis concludes that there is no difference between organic and other food. After all, the substances analysed are building blocks common to all foods,” Bernard Jarman, executive director of the organisation, said in a statement.
“What is more surprising is that such a limited investigation has been carried out. It is widely acknowledged that food quality assessment needs to include many other factors too - flavour, keeping quality and absence of chemical residues being but three,” Jarman added.
The reasons why people chose organic food were various, but important among them was that they had been grown without pesticides and contained virtually no toxic residues. This was highly significant but was consciously left out of consideration by this piece of research, the BDAA said: “The effects of chemical residues on health have been well documented.”
A second reason people chose organic food was that organic farming guaranteed that the environment was properly cared for, that animal welfare was assured and that the integrity of plants and animals was fully respected, the BDAA went on to say.
“At a time of growing awareness of the damage being done to the environment, this is a major consideration when buying food. Organic farming, dependent on soil for providing nutrition to the plants, is focussed on creating humus, and humus is a very powerful method of locking up atmospheric carbon,” the biodynamic association added.
People also chose organic food because of its quality: “Quality concerns flavour, smell, appearance, keeping quality and vitality, all somewhat intangible elements which are difficult to assess analytically. However, the human senses can assess quality in a moment, and where we are most interested, in wine tasting for example, we develop senses that are highly acute.”
In this area organic and, in particular, biodynamic growing was consistently shown to produce a better product: “People who care as much about their carrots as about their wine know what nonsense this report is talking.”
Biodynamic food bearing the Demeter label and incorporating all organic standards was particularly known for its “fulsome flavours, good keeping quality and high vitality”. Analytical tests on fresh biodynamic vegetables also showed well balanced protein formation (improving digestibility) and increased dry matter and fibre content. All factors which contributed to a healthy diet.
“Organic food is better for the environment and better for health. Organic food is a wise and meaningful choice for consumers to make,” the BDAA said.
The Soil Association, a leading certification body for organic standards, also said that at first glance the research appeared to be a “fairly limited piece of analysis”. For example, the review only looked at research papers with abstracts written in English, it excluded the results of more than half the papers it found, and it ignored more up-to-date research from the European Union, completed in April this year.
It was a popular myth that people who buy organic food only did so because they thought it would make them healthier. Recent EU research had found that regular buyers of organic food had a much more sophisticated understanding of the range of benefits that organic farming and food delivered.
“We are disappointed in the conclusions the researchers have reached. The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences. This was because these studies did not meet particular criteria fixed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,” Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, commented in a statement.
“Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not ‘important’, due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods,” he added.
“Organic farming and food systems are holistic, and are produced to work with nature rather than to rely on oil-based inputs such as fertilisers.
“Consumers who purchase organic products are not just buying food which has not been covered in pesticides - the average apple may be sprayed up to 16 times with as many as 30 different pesticides - they are supporting a system that has the highest welfare standards for animals, bans routine use of antibiotics and increases wildlife on farms,” the statement concluded.
END/nna/cva
Links: www.biodynamic.org.uk, www.soilassociation.org, www.food.gov.uk
Item: 090808-01EN Date: 8 August 2009
Copyright 2009 News Network Anthroposophy Limited. All rights reserved. See: http://www.nna-news.org/copyright/
More NNA reports at: www.nna-news.org/en/
