A group of British researchers concluded that organic foods aren't nutritionally superior to their conventionally produced cousins after reviewing 50 years of published literature on the topic.
However, the review didn't address any contaminants or chemical residue connected with different agricultural production methods. One of the main benefits of organic food is the absence of chemical additives.
The study by researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicine was published Wednesday in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Bonnie - as we have discussed so many times in the past, a review study is very subjective. This blog alone can cite several recent studies showing that organic food is better from a nutritional point of view. The fact that they did not consider the effect of pesticides leaves a major void.
The review comes with other strong limiting factors. Notably, a large number of studies were excluded because they did not specify an organic certifying body, there was no information on the cultivar or livestock breed, no statement of which nutrient or nutritionally relevant substance was reviewed, no information on statistical methods, or no information on laboratory methods.
The researchers also excluded studies in foreign languages that did not have English abstracts; the team could not locate 11 studies that may have contained relevant data; and two studies published after the cut off date were not taken into account.
No comments:
Post a Comment