Interesting results from a study published in the american journal of clinical nutrition by a UK research group suggest that, for the major nutrients, organic foods are no more nutritious than ordinary non-organic foods. A couple of questions I want to follow up on are who funded this research project and what were the nutrients they were comparing. As a scientist I suspect that the variation in nutrient concentration measured was quite high in both traditional and organic foods, begging the question as to whether they had enough data samples or replicates.
Personally I’m not a big promoter or detractor of either organic or non-organic production and we still have a lot to learn about nutrition, particularly human nutrition. Let the customer decide, and make an informed decision. However the big challenge I still see is proving, with some level of certainty, where the product came from. In most cases this can be done, however with most meat, and meat products this can not be done, so virtually anything could be sold as organic. Anyone got any comments? I’ll try to get the paper, read it and come back with some thoughts.
Jim
Comments Received