Organic food no more nutritious than conventionally produced food

There is no difference in the quality of nutrients between organically and conventionally produced foods, according to a systematic review of food studies.

Small differences detected in nutrient content were likely biological and mainly related to differences in production methods.

“Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat,” Gill Fine, director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health of the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom, said in a press release. “This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.”

The systematic review included data from 55 studies to compare the content of the 13 most commonly reported nutrient categories in organic and conventionally produced food. The study did not include a review of contaminants or chemical residues from different agricultural production regimens.

No significant differences were found between production methods in nutrient content for 10 out of 13 categories or in nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced livestock products.

However, conventionally produced food had a significantly higher content of nitrogen vs. organically produced food, which had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and titratable acidity.

“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,” Alan D. Dangour, MSc, PhD, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, said in a press release.

Dangour AD. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;doi:10.10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041.