FSA study was right - but organic has far wider environmental benefits, says Tim Lang


Last week's study funded by the Food Standards Agency into the nutritional status of organics did not surprise me. The FSA was hammered for it but I think for the wrong reasons. Don't misunderstand me. I broadly support organics as a progressive force in food policy. I used to farm organically in the 1970s and am president of Garden Organic. I see advantages in organics. But I see little evidence that organics delivers prevention or cure for the major health scourges of our times: heart disease, strokes, diabetes, obesity and so on. Eating organic saturated fat or sugar doesn't alter the fact that we need to produce and eat less of them.

It all depends on what you mean by 'health'. The FSA asked an experienced London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine team to conduct a systematic review. This is a standard procedure that sifts through all studies conducted on a topic, evaluating them against criteria of proven effect. A study saying people liked the taste of something doesn't fit; randomised control trials do. It's the process NICE uses evaluating drugs or medical interventions.

The researchers found 162 relevant articles reported in a wide range of scientific journals over the past 50 years. Of these, only 11 studies met the criteria of scientific credibility. Collectively these showed no differences for nutrients such as vitamin C, calcium, phosphorus, potassium and sodium. But significant differences were found for some minerals, phytochemicals and sugars these being higher in organic foods. The researchers concluded "there is currently no evidence of a health benefit from consuming organic compared to conventionally produced foodstuffs".

The phrasing here is important. The study only looked for nutritional effects, not wider health or environmental effects. Organics has an advantage for occupational health in that it does not put the grower into exposure risks when spraying. And organics has clear advantages for biodiversity and not using artificial/chemical fertilisers a major source of run-off into water systems. Fertilisers are the biggest agricultural contributor to greenhouse gas emissions more, according to the Stern report, than meat or dairy.

The real reason to support organics ought to be that it looks after the soil. How we treat the soil is a major feature of the sustainability crisis. The trouble with modern food is that we treat the soil like dirt.


Tim Lang is professor of food policy at City University t.lang@city.ac.uk.