Organic food is no healthier, study finds.

I'm really not convinced. I'd need 25 different studies corroborating with the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's findings for me to believe that there was no significant nutritional/health benefits to eating organic. You have to wonder who is backing their study -- Monsanto or another agri-giant with a vested interest in keeping mainstream agriculture alive and well?

I kind of wonder too about who is backing such studies. To me, nothing comes close to the quality, taste and flavor of organic foods. It seems so unlikely that the conventional foods can be as good. I do hope some corroborative studies would refute such questionable findings.

When I saw that article I wanted to scream! Hogwash! My first thought was, "Who is paying off who?" It's all about the money. They even wrote the Organic's is a Billion Dollar Industry. I am positive they didn't test for the chemicals and toxins in the foods because of spraying, that cause cancer and other ailments. Possibly Vitamin C is Vitamin C, but why eat it if your going to get cancer later from the pesticides within the one that isn't organic!

Today, I have come across a very strong rebuttal to the study of "Nutritional Quality of Organic Foods ... " ... that was conducted by the London team.......
As stated in a rebuttal by Alison Rogers, 'The Organic Center' (TOC) reanalyzed the data and came up with a different set of interpretations of the quality of organic foods. The London team downplayed positive findings in favor of organic food. It also indicated that organic foods have denser nutrient content than conventional foods. And their study omitted total antioxidant capacity - an important nutrient..... The London team also used data from over a 50 years period - from January 1958 through February 2008....."Most of the older studies used plant varieties no longer in use, and did not measure or report total phenolics or antioxidant capacity (since these nutrients were just being discovered). The older studies used analytical methods that are now considered inferior, compared to modern methods"......
Since February 2008, the cut-off date for London study, newer studies that have much superior designs and analytical methods based upon the criticisms of older studies, have proven that nitrogen (higher in conventional foods and which is considered to be a potential cancer causing hazard) and vitamin C, total phenolics, and total antioxidant capacity, which are typically higher in organic foods......... "Despite that fact that these three categories of nutrients favored organic foods, and none favored conventionally grown foods, the London-based team concluded that there are no nutritional differences between organically and conventionally grown crops". As the pursuits of higher crop yields is continuing, a study by Brian Halwell of the TOC confirms that nutrient levels in the U.S. food supply is being eroded......
I will stop here and leave the details to be read in Mother Earth News. I am now totally convinced with what TOC has to say in this matter - ORGANIC FOODS ARE SUPERIOR !!!!!!!

Following up on Surinder's findings is this report following up on the track record of the FSA and its somewhat muddied objectivity...ok its not muddied, it supports GM food products.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1203343/JOANNA-BLYTHMAN-A-cancerous-conspiracy-poison-faith-organic-food.html

Quickly, the article states...
"Ever since its creation in 2000, the Food Standards Agency has been biased against organic farming...there was a risk of the Agency losing its 'objectivity' and 'rigour' in its support for GM crops and its opposition to organic production...the organisation that conducted this second-hand study, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is not renowned as a leading centre in this field..."

Mark and Elizah, you both seem to have knowledge about the biased leanings of the TSA team. Thanks for the input in this matter. Now we know why the study has been skewed and presented wrongly.

Just read a news clip stating that cattle in the northern states of India are dying after eating fodder that has high 'nitrogen' content (due to the excessive use of nitrogenous fertilizers on crops). This again goes to prove that the conventional agricultural practices can create nutritional imbalances resulting in detrimental health consequences.

Just found this passage from Faster Times that really sheds light on the organic debate: "From an initial 91,989 articles published between January 1958 and February 2008 that compared organic and conventional produce, the authors whittled their study down to an assessment of 11 articles. That’s right, 91,978 scientific articles were dismissed on the basis of not being written in English, not being peer-reviewed, not addressing a relevant health outcome, or being concerned with pesticide contamination rather than nutrient composition." That is how they determined that some organic produce has more nutrients than conventional, some has less and some has the same. Wow. That definitely doesn't seem like a carefully considered perspective.

Linda, thanks for providing additional information about the organic debate. Isn't it amazing that some people would present facts to suit their own biased perspectives. Not providing full and complete analysis of facts, does not have a place in the scientific critical reviews.

My say on this is that it all start with the intake and of course the source of food. The study you refer to was JUST a waste of time - that's exactly what they didn't get into, huh!....
Where I grew up in Romania, people were not as sick or fat, and,...for sure it has to do with FOOD, and the Source of that, everything was naturally processed and I would never have a problem with getting sick out of nowhere or gaining wait. (which in my opinion still everything has to do with the intake, not volume but the type of food you eat)