Study Denying Nutritional
Benefits of Organic Was Bogus

From <www.organicts.com> 7/18/02

CANADIAN ORGANIC 'RESEARCH' WAS BOGUS

15 July

A survey of the nutrient contents of organic produce is being billed by
Canadian researchers as demonstrating that "organics showed no clear
nutritional content over conventional fruits and vegetables" (see Newsline
last week). Samples of 20 different fruits and vegetables were obtained
from retail outlets, analysed and compared with standard food table levels
representing conventional food levels.

The researchers conceded their survey involved "a very small sample and was
not peer-reviewed". Results were mixed, though the small sample size and
considerable shortcomings of the survey render the outcomes meaningless.
Comparing fresh organic sample analyses with food composition tables
introduces so many uncontrolled variables that Virginia Worthington's
verdict of 'unscientific' is almost a complement. The actual sample sizes
are not documented.

Key variables known to influence the nutrient contents of fresh produce not
controlled for include variety, geographical source, time since harvest,
size/maturity/ripeness of the samples, time since harvest, and storage
methods since harvest.

Further, far too limited a range of nutrients are compared to make any claim
regarding the overall nutritional content of the produce analysed. Zinc
levels, one of the more interesting comparisons given it's importance as a
trace mineral in human health and because many people are not able to obtain
the recommended daily allowance, described as 'negligible', are reported as
the same level in all twenty crops, which is often 100 percent higher than
the conventional food table figures. Clearly the zinc levels were not
properly assessed.

Far more valid comparative research would have compared real life
conventional and organic produce, matched to control as many variables as
possible, and comparing as many nutrients as possible, including twenty or
so minerals beyond calcium, iron, potassium, sodium and zinc. Similar
research that was conducted in this manner was published in 1993 by Bob
Smith in the Journal of Applied Nutrition. Smith found levels of minerals
in organic produce were around twice those in conventional produce.

A recent review of all the available valid research comparing organic and
conventional produce conducted by nutritionist Shane Heaton on behalf of the
UK's Soil Association concluded "Collectively, the scientific evidence
supports the view that organically produced foods are significantly
different in terms of food safety, nutrient content and nutritional value©-
and "Consumers wishing to improve their intake of minerals, vitamin C and
antioxidant phytonutrients while reducing their exposure to potentially
harmful pesticide residues, nitrate, GMOs and artificial additives used in
food processing should, wherever possible, choose organically produced
food."

Quality research is sorely needed in this area to expand on the trends
evident in the research conducted to date and to inform consumer choice.
Canadian TV may have had good intentions, though their lack of scientific
rigour has served only to mislead and obfuscate.

Shane Heaton, Nutrition Consultant, Organic Researcher, Email:
shane@dontjustsurvive.com

References
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20020707/organic_charts_
020707/
Heaton S, 2001, 'Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human Health', Soil
Association report, Bristol, UK.
Smith B, 1993, 'Organic Foods versus Supermarket Foods: element levels',
Journal of Applied Nutrition 45(1), p35-9.