Organic Food Not Healthier than "Regular" Food According to Study

The benefits of organic food have been trumpeted loudly from just about every corner, from the pages of fitness and health magazines to the specialty aisles of grocery stores. Many people who have caught the craze refuse to eat anything other than organic food, and are willing to pay a major premium for "the good stuff" because of the perceived benefits of the all natural growing process that is the mark of organic food. A recent study, however, suggests that the obsession with organically-grown produce and refusal to eat "regular" food may be entirely unnecessary.

According to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the global organic market that exploded to an estimated $48 billion by 2007 is all a hoax. According to their study, which included a systematic review of over 160 scientific papers published in various science journals over the past 50 years, there are no significant nutritional differences between organically grown food and the variety grown with standard processes. Said Alan Dangour, one of the report’s authors, "A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance."

Dangour also noted that, "Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority." The research study was commissioned by the British Food Standards Agency, a government agency, and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.