#dangour

A couple of months ago the news media made big news of a report from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine regarding organic foods. Their conclusion was that, after reviewing 162 studies published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, they found no significant difference in health benefit from consuming organic foods. Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors, said "A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance, our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."

   I was puzzled and skeptical regarding the conclusions achieved by the investigators. I thought at the time that perhaps the researchers did not adequately consider the difference in content of pesticides and toxins and my impression was that they did not compare the antioxidant flavonoids and carotenoid content as well as they should. I was glad to see another opinion on the topic by Denis Lairon of the University of Aix Marseille in France. His review of data compiled for the French food agency AFSSA shows organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals, including iron and magnesium, and more antioxidant polyphenols and salicylic acid. He also reports that almost all organic food does not contain pesticide residues, while organic vegetables contain much lower nitrate levels than conventionally produced foods. Lairon, D. "Nutritional quality an safety of organic food, a review." Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2009) DOI: 10.1051/agro/2009019.

Hard Life - Dangour, Malakarius & Sulu-G.