A recent study published in the UK caused a big kafuffle in the organic industry when it claimed there was no nutritional benefit to organic produce over conventional. The researchers looked at studies conducted over the last 40 years, and while the organic foods often did contain a higher amount of vitamins and minerals, they decide the difference was not “nutritionally” significant. In a single piece of produce, a 17 % difference in beta carotene, as one study found, may not be significant, just as they said. But what if that 17% were missing from everything you ate, day after day, year after year?  Would that make a difference? Probably, but that is the holistic nutrition perspective, not the conventional.

I put that concept out there because it needs to be said. Good health is easier to achieve if all the food consumed has the maximum amount of nutrients possible. However, the important aspect of the study to note, is that the studies they looked at examined vitamin and mineral content. Unfortunately, they did not look at the phyto-nutrient content, the new superstars in the health world, linked to prevention of many diseases prevalent today. As part of the plant’s defense system, phyto-nutrient content goes up in food when the plants are attacked by bugs or fungus.

A case can be made that vitamin and minerals content will be affected by a number of factors, such as vine-ripening, good soil management or varieties and these can affect the nutritional value of both organic and conventional. Most studies over the last 40 years, like the ones they considered, tested produce grown separately and this fact has been used for years to discount the higher nutrient content found in organic foods. I am not sure why the researchers were not aware that there was this general opinion, before they looked at all those studies that had already been deem invalid by the conventionally-minded. The argument was always, in order to truly judge, the same variety of food would have to be grown at the same time, in the same geographical location, one organically and one conventionally, in order for any claims to be made. Perhaps, like the following study:

The £12m EU–funded four–year Quality Low Input Food project—the biggest of its kind to date used a farm in northeast England to grow conventional produce alongside organic, side by side, same conditions, same time, same varieties. Up to 40% more antioxidants and phytonutrients, were found in organic fruit and vegetables than in those conventionally farmed. Cattle were also farmed on the 725–acre plot, where it was discovered that organic milk contains 60% more antioxidants and desirable fatty acids than ordinary milk.

That makes a pretty compelling case for organic. If only it were that simple. Both organic, farmers, conventional as well as health professionals need a reality check. They need to accept nature knows best. It has created a complex system where the food we eat must defend itself for it to survive and its survival is an indicator that we have the healthiest food. We should not be tampering with this process but both groups do. Some organic farmers, in their misguided attempt to meet the public’s perception of what food should look like, sometimes use non-toxic, natural pesticides and fungicides that are not harmful to the environment. However, they do eliminate the need for the plant to defend itself and therefore, will limit the phytonutrient content just like conventionally-pretty produce.

And it gets even dumber. Phytonutrients tend to be the stronger flavours in our food. Words like “sour” or “bitter” would be best describe their flavor. There is a trend to create modern varieties, with these flavors decreased, in favor of a sweeter taste. In doing so, the phytonutrients are bred out, lowering the nutrient content. Organic farmers tend to grow more heritage varieties than their conventional counterparts but both need to be encouraged to avoid modern varieties and understand the nutritional value of the older varieties. It appears all involved including the nutritional professionals who did the study need a major nutritional lesson. 

For more info on the issue of varieties:     

800-Year-Old Apple ‘Healthiest to Eat’