The answer to this question is yes according to a recent article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which found that there was little or no nutritional benefit to eating organic foods and which has been widely reported in the Irish press.
However, as with all research, it is vital to take a closer look at the source of this information (as our diploma students are always being told!!) and evaluate for yourselves whether the reported findings are indeed the full facts!

The first thing to consider in this case is the type of research conducted. It was a ’review’ article., which means the researchers compared the findings of previously completed research . This is generally a great way to get an overview of current scientific work, and this was the largest review of organic produce to date. All good so far, except that being such as large study does mean that the researchers themselves were basing their findings on research done as far back as the 1980s, and using questionable research techniques.

The main problem with this study was that the actual findings did not match the limitations of its methods and the conclusions drawn did not fully match the actual findings. Yes, the research they did found that levels of vitamins and minerals were no higher in organic fruits and vegetables than their inorganic counterparts in some of the studies they reviewed, however suggesting that this means organic food is no better for health is the typically narrow view of food and its nutritional value that Nutritional Therapists are constantly fighting against.

The main problems with this statement are as follows:
1. It only considered the “nutritional” differences of organic/conventional produce in the short-term (eating organic over one’s lifetime or eating conventional over one’s lifetime may have a huge impact on health)
2. The vitamin and mineral content of a food is important but it is only one factor governing the health benefits a particular food might hold. What about the multitude of wonderful phytonutrients found in plant foods such as fruit, vegetables and whole grains, which have been found to prevent potentially fatal conditions such as cancer and heart disease? We have no idea from this research paper if the levels of these vital nutrients were affected by farming methods

They didn’t review the health effects of pesticide/chemical use on conventional produce vs. organic. This is perhaps the biggest problem with drawing conclusions about health from a research paper such as this., as the amount of each nutrient in the food is somewhat unimportant if the presence of pesticides alters in any way how our body absorbs or utilises a nutrient. Unfortunately, not only can pesticides reduce the amount of nutrients absorbed through our digestive tracts but they can also increase our need for specific nutrients. This is particularly true of the antioxidant nutrients, which help mop up damaging chemicals called free radicals in our bodies. Where do many of these free radicals come from? Intake of environmental chemicals such as pesticides!

At IHS we always encourage discussion on topics such as this, and always ask students to question what they are reading and never accept anything on face value. This is why we were delighted to hear from Colette Lyng, a recent graduate of our Naturopathic Nutrition Certificate who is now joining year 1 of our diploma course. Colette had the following questions regarding the research
1) What is meant by “conventional farming” If all of the farmers in the studies reported used crop rotation then you would expect vitamin and mineral levels to be maintained. It is vital to know if the sample of conventional farmers used was representative of the total population of farmers - i.e. did they include a proportionate number of intensive farmers.
2) At what point in the production process was the food analysed? - It is very likely to have been very soon after harvesting. The findings certainly wouldn’t reflect the nutritional content of all organic and non-organic food by the time the reach our plates.
3) How were the nutrients included in the study chosen. It is possible that the nutrients studied are not as adversely affected by intensive farming, pesticides etc.
4) The authors said they had no vested interests in the conclusions drawn. However did they look at the vested interests of the parties responsible for the studies they reviewed? It is possible that small organic producers would not have the same resources for conducting research as conventional food producers which might result in secondary bias.

All these questions are food for thought, and very interesting. It is great to see someone posing such questions. All research is fraught with methodological problems. This does not mean that research should not be conducted, but it does mean that researchers should be vigilant in acknowledging their flaws and when drawing conclusions. To see the original article go to:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1

But you will have to pay 25 dollars for the privilege!!