Organic food “not healthier”

August 5, 2009 by Tim
Filed under: Humour, Pseudo-Science

A recently published study claims that so-called organic food is no healthier than conventionally produced (inorganic?) food.

“A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally-produced crops and livestock, said Dr Alan Dangour, principal author of the study.

“But these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance.”

And he added: “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.”

Here’s another case where conventional wisdom sees science intervene in traditional knowledge and pronounces it bad. Or evil. Or harmful. But ask for the evidence and the answer is usually an appeal to the natural, as if agriculture is a “natural” activity. Agriculture by its very nature reduces biodiversity. The great fertile plains and richly wooded hills of the Middle East weren’t destroyed by modern scientific agriculture.

Of course harm can be caused by inappropriate use of under-tested chemicals. But that’s true of any human activity and that’s why our societies and scientists should and do insist on evidence from properly conducted tests before unleashing these chemicals in the production of our food. The fact is that there is no evidence to support the assertion that organic food is superior to conventionally produced food.

But I think Penn & Teller do a much better job of rubbishing organic farming than I ever could.