Posted by Jonathan Adler:
Organic Food Still Ain't All That:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_26-2009_08_01.shtml#1249147644
A review of existing research on the purported health benefits of
organic foods confirms that organic food is no better for you than
"conventional" food. [1]From Reuters:
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because
of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market
worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.
A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the
scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there
was no significant difference.
"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to
exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs,
but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," said
Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.
"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."
The study was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The abstract is [2]here.
This finding is no surprise. As I [3]posted years ago, the organic
food industry has never had any scientific evidence to support the
widespread belief that eating organic is better for you.
It's also doubtful that organic farming has any clear environmental
benefits over conventional agriculture. A major 2002 study (which I
[4]noted at the time), suggested that organic agriculture could be
less energy-intensive, but some [5]dispute this claim.
State-of-the-art conventional techniques are far more energy efficient
than they used to be. In other respects, organic agriculture appears
to be environmentally inferior to conventional farming techniques. In
particular, organic agriculture tends to be less productive than
contemporary conventional farming, yielding less per acre. For those
of us concerned about protecting species habitat and reducing
agriculture's "footprint," this is a big deal.
But is organic food better in some other way? After all, haven't you
ever had a meal featuring local, organically grown produce that was
over the top? I sure have. But I doubt that the organic nature of
production is the relevant viable. Rather, fresh, locally-grown
produce will often taste fresher because it is fresher. Having grown
up in Philadelphia, I can tell you that nothing beat some of the fresh
produce we could buy along the roadside in south Jersey. Nothing --
and I mean nothing -- beats a fresh south Jersey tomato -- but this is
true whether or not organic techniques are used.
So, as I've said before (and will probably say again), eat organics if
you want, but don't think you're doing yourself or the planet any
favors. To the contrary, there are [6]many good reasons not to be a
food elitist.
References
1. http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE56S3ZJ20090729?rpc=60
2. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1
3.
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_09_05-2004_09_11.shtml#1094737139
4. http://volokh.com/2002_06_09_volokh_archive.html#85155878
5. http://www.reason.com/rb/rb060502.shtml
6. http://www.reason.com/blog/show/135155.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
