French study finds organic is in fact more nutritious

The French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA) has found that organic food is superior nutritionally, in research published in the Journal Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

This contrasts with the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) report, lead authored by Alan Dangor of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

The UK FSA report concluded that there was no significant nutritional differences between organic and conventional foods.

However the French study, authored by Denis Lairon, found key differences between organic and conventional foods.

According to the French study, organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals, specifically Iron and Magnesium, and contain more anti-oxidant micronutrients such as phenols and salicylic acid. Organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids.

The report also found that organic vegetables contain far less nitrates. 80% of human exposure to nitrates comes from vegetables. Nitrates, which convert to nitrites, are linked to gastric cancer, circulatory problems and respiratory conditions such as asthma.

Significantly, the French research also examined pesticide residues, whereas the UK FSA research did not consider this area. Lairon found that 94-100% of organic food has no pesticide residues.

The UK FSA research only considered research with an abstract (i.e. academic summary) written in English. This makes the French research all the more significant, as it is based on a comprehensive 2003 report written in French, as well as more recent findings.

The French study is here

UK FSA report on organic vs conventional food's nutrition: part 2

As revealed last posting on this, the recent UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) report, comparing the nutritional levels of organic and conventional foods from 1958 to February 2008, actually left out every publication from before 1990.

In total, 2/3 of all the relevant peer reviewed research was rejected.

The logic given in the report is that in the 66% of rejected work, various failings in the peer review process were uncovered. The biggest single fault found was that no certification body was listed or inferred for the organic produce analysed (p 15).

In many cases this was because certification was in its infancy.

This is a very big and very important decision to make. Many state bodies, such as our own Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF), does not actually have a certification body.

DAFF is what is called the competent authority: it delegates to private inspection and certification bodies. However, it does not have private certification bodies inspect its own research centres.

Thus, any research done by DAFF would not have been included in this report, irrespective of which scientific journal it appeared in.

It is reasonable to assume that the same could also hold for at least some other state institutions across the world, who inevitably delegate authority to private certification bodies.

Often, the state does not see the need or value in inspections on its own research by these private bodies: after all, it delegates power to these bodies.

This certification issue is especially significant because in this rejected 66%, the findings are far more positive for organic than in the 34% considered at the quality level.

Interestingly, the report itself does actually list nutritional findings taken from an analysis of all 162 publications.

It is just that the official findings and conclusions, which suggest that there are no significant differences between organic and conventional in nutritional terms, come from their analysis of just 55 publications: i.e. the smaller 1/3 or 34%. For example, they claim:

�Organically produced crops were found to have significantly higher levels of sugars, magnesium, zinc, dry matter, phenolic compounds and flavonoids than conventionally crops� (p 17).

These significant differences were found when taking all 162 peer reviewed published papers into account.

When taking the narrower quality criteria, and considering just a maximum of 55, or 1/3, only three differences were found: Conventional crops were found to have more nitrogen, and organic crops more phosphorus and titratable acidity.

Based on the latter three findings from the smaller set of publications, the authors claim that no significant differences were to be found between organic and conventional nutritionally.

The same holds for livestock products: 3 out of ten significant differences were found between organic and conventional. However with the narrower selection criteria, which leaves out 2/3 of all published research, just one was found. The other two were rejected due to insufficient data.

Out of a possible 162, just 25 in total dealt with all livestock products: i.e. all meat and dairy products.

Incredibly, within these 25, it seems that hardly any were considered to actually have met the quality criteria: according to appendix 13, p.3, no more than 6 publications were at the required level for the authors.

To say that more research is needed sometimes just sounds like an appeal for funding: in this case, it seems fairly clear that this handful of livestock product papers, supposedly spanning five decades, is fairly paltry.

Professor Carlo Leifert co-ordinated the major EU Quality Low Input Food (QLIF) initiative, which involved 31 research and university institutes.

Leifert's own research, suggesting organic milk's nutritional superiority, appeared in April 2008 - technically 2 months too late for inclusion in the study.

He said: "I'm worried about the conclusions. The ballpark figures they have come up with are similar to ours. I don't understand why the FSA are not going away and saying, 'Right, there's something you can do on a farm to improve food.' But they are so blocked by not wanting to say positive things about organic farming."

UK FSA report on organic vs conventional food's nutrition: part one

I'll be giving my interpretation of the UK FSA report into organics and nutrition in two postings here. However I'm not in a position to put the second part up until next week.

The recent report comparing nutritional levels of organic and conventional food excluded 2/3 of all relevant peer reviewed research from its findings.

The report claims to be the most comprehensive study into this subject ever conducted, examining every relevant publication from 1958 to 2008.

However, through a controversial selection process, most publications, including every single publication before 1990, were considered below the authors' quality standard.

Pre-1990 publications were omitted because no organic certification body was listed or inferred in the relevant journal articles, as organic certification was then in its infancy.

Slightly bizarrely, the exclusion of pre 1990 publications was obscured by an unfortunate typo on page 15 of the report. This typo resulted in half a paragraph being omitted from the report, a fact acknowledged in correspondence with lead author Dr. Alan Dangour.

Here, precisely, is what he said to me what I spotted this typo:

BEGINS

Thank you for spotting this. Not sure how it happened as it is not in my final version of the report. The second half of that paragraph should read:

Finally, more than half the studies in the review (54%) failed to provide a clear definition of the organic production methods used (we required a statement of certifying body, although if no certifying body was named it was inferred when possible from the text provided). No study published pre-1990 met this final quality criterion, largely due to the general lack of certifying bodies at that time, although even recent studies often failed to state the name of the organic production certifying body. In total, one third of studies included in the review (34%) met the pre-defined quality criteria (see Table 1).

ENDS

While a careful examination of the publications lists in the appendices would reveal this to the intrepid scholar, the vast majority of readers would have lost this fact.

The study was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) for the UK's Food Standards Agency.

The LSHTM�s team of researchers, led by Dr. Alan Dangour, claims to have reviewed all papers published over the past 50 years that studied nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food.

According to Dangor �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.�

To date, many of the criticisms of the report have been well aired. It: rejected publications with foreign language abstracts (i.e. summaries); excluded areas of health concern such as biocide residues and additives; left out important nutritients, downplayed its own significant findings where they suggested organic is superior nutritionally.

For the latter, this includes the findings with regard to polyunsaturated fats in dairy and and meat products.

Indeed, the mean differences revealed in the report do point to the following higher levels in organic food: Protein 12.7%; Beta-carotene 53.6% Flavonoids 38.4%; Copper 8.3%; Magnesium 7.1%; Phosphorous 6%; Potassium 2.5%; Sodium 8.7%; Sulphur 10.5%; Zinc 11.3%; Phenolic compounds 13.2%.

When I put this to Alan Dangor, he replied �It is important to distinguish between "mean differences" and "statistically significant differences".�

However many consumers would be pleased to hear of almost 40% more Flavonoids, over 50% more beta-carotene, and indeed any extra zinc and magnesium.

One of the underreported problems with the report is the fact that individual foods are not considered. Instead, every product within the broad categories of livestock and crops are considered together.

So if, as recent research suggests, organic tomatoes and kiwis are superior nutritionally, this is balanced out by the overall grouping of all fruits and vegetables into one category.

According to the report itself:�The authors understand that combining all crops and all animal products into single groups and analysing the results by nutrient category may have obscured possible nutrient differences within specific foodstuffs. Certain types of foodstuffs may be more

responsive to organic or conventional production systems than others, and these

differences may have been diluted or lost when all foodstuffs were combined in this

manner�.

Considering Dr. Dangor's statement above on mean vs significant differences, this is ironic to say the least.

However leaving out 2/3 of all the relevant research is surely the most glaring issue.

162 publications were identified. Only 1/3, or 55 of these, were considered as at the authors' pre-defined quality criteria.

Yet all of the 2/3 considered below the quality level were actually accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

In other words, the scientific community examined them and found them to be up to the required level for publication in a scientific journal.

So the authors of this report have peer reviewed the peer reviewing process, and rejected 2/3 of what others in the scientific community accepted.

This is especially significant because it is in the 2/3 of peer reviewed publications the authors reject, that the majority of positive research into organic food's nutritional levels is found.

Next posting on this will further examine the rejection of 2/3 of all relevant publications.