business news in context, analysis with attitude

The BBC reports this morning on a new study by the UK Food Standards Agency concluding that organic food is no healthier than so-called “ordinary food.”

According to the story, “Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years. Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.

“Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron. The same was true for studies looking at meat, dairy and eggs.”
KC's View:
It seems to me that we’ve seen this movie before, and that it doesn’t make any more sense this time around.

I’m not arguing the nutrient issue. But it is hard to fathom how products made without additives, preservatives, pesticides, insecticides or antibiotics can be said to have no health advantages over those that cannot make that claim.

I will say this. I’ve seen this report publicized in a bunch of places this morning, and so it may be necessary for organic retailers and manufacturers to address it, to get aggressive about defining what they see as their differential advantages.