Should we forget about organic food?

A recent
report by the Food Standards Agency argues that organic food doesn’t bring any
substantial nutritional benefits compared to conventionally produced food.
This contradicts the conclusions of previous studies suggesting organic food to
be nutritionally superior. As one might have expected, supporters of organic
farming have been critical of the report, yet it is unfortunate that the media
coverage on this issue often gives the impression that organic food has been
shown to be a sham (some consumer groups thus expect shoppers to now “think
twice before buying organic”)
and that its advocates are now reduced to using any bad argument they can think
of to prove the contrary. This impression is understandable but misleading.

Thus the
Soil Association, which represents the organic food industry, is quoted as
claiming that the report “doesn't say organic food is not healthier, just that,
according to the criteria they have adopted, there's no proof that it is”; and
also as regretting that the authors chose not to take into account the majority
of the studies on the issue which were produced during the 50-years period considered by the researchers. But clearly, the authors of the report
were assuming that the criteria they used were appropriate to guarantee
scientific rigor. And they don’t just talk of a lack of proof that organic produce is
nutritionally superior, but of a lack of good evidence for that claim. If such evidence is
indeed lacking, then it is enough to undermine the case for buying organic food
based on the assumption that it is healthier – why should one spend more money
for a mere possibility, absent any conclusive evidence? Besides, the previous
studies that the authors chose to ignore were ones that did not meet their
scientific criteria. The Soil Association might thus be accused (as it has
notably been in this polemical piece) of using data from questionable sources to back up an indefensible position.

Yet the
conclusions of the FSA report do not suffice to undermine the case for
preferring organic products, for a number of reasons:

–  
First,
an important EU-funded four-year study on this very issue has notably found
higher level of antioxidants – which help the body to combat cancer and
cardiovascular disease – in organic foods. The authors of the FSA report didn’t
take this study into account, but this wasn’t because of a perceived lack of
scientific rigor – which precisely drew criticism from organic food
campaigners. This of course doesn’t mean that the FSA study can be neglected
and that claims about the supposed nutritional superiority of organic food
shouldn’t be treated with caution, but it does suggest that this study cannot
just be regarded as the last word on this issue. A careful assessment of the
respective merits and (in)compatibility of these two pieces of research appears
necessary.

–  
Secondly,
though the environmental implications of organic farming are a complex issue,
it is nevertheless agreed that many organic products have a lower ecological
impact than similar products grown according to conventional methods. There is
also evidence that organic farming could be more efficient and better for soil
health, and
that it might also favor biodiversity.

–  
Finally,
it is quite uncontroversial that organic farming guarantees the highest standards available today for animal welfare.

Most of
these considerations are mentioned in the Soil Association’s official response
to the FSA review.
It would be disappointing if consumers, because of an incomplete presentation
of the relevant information in some news articles or blog entries, were to
conclude that there is no point in buying organic.