Responding to the UK Food Standards Agency

OANZ has been responding to media this morning about a study, commissioned by the UK's Food Standards Agency, which claims that health differences between organic and non-organic food are "not important".

The UK Soil Association has a full response to the study on their website, but it's unsurprising that the study (which is actually a review of pre-existing research) reaches the same conclusions that the Food Standards Agency has been arguing for some time.

It's also noteworthy that the study does not consider the health effects of ingesting pesticide and other chemical residues, when avoiding these residues is one of the main reasons people choose organic food.

There are hundreds of studies on the health benefits of organic versus non-organic food, and many different measures of health that these studies use.  The method of production is also one of many factors which influences how healthy food is.  What studies do tend to show is that organic food has higher density of some key nutrients - and indeed, the Food Standards Agency does agree that organic food has higher levels of nurients including protein, beta-carotene and flavonoids.

Of course, health is only one factor which shapes food purchasing decisions.  The ethics and sustainability of production - including environmental and animal welfare standards - play increasingly important roles in shaping food choices, along with the basic desire to know more about how our food is grown.

Ultimately, consumers are making up their own minds about the benefits of buying organic food - and around the world we are continuing to choose organic.