A new review commissioned by the FSA has found that organic food holds no nutritional benefits over conventionally-produced food.

An independent review published by the FSA (Food Standards Agency) has concluded that organic food is no healthier than ordinary food.

According to the review, there are no important differences between organic food and normal food in terms of nutrition and additional health benefits.

The review was commissioned by the FSA and conducted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). Researchers at LSHTM reviewed papers from the last 50 years on the subject of nutrition and health benefits, comparing organic food with ordinary food.

The research covers not only crops, but also meat, dairy and eggs.

Dr Alan Dangour of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, said: “Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods in the basis of nutritional superiority.”

Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health, said: “Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat.

“This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food.”

She went on to add: “The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food. We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns.”

Peter Melchett, Policy Director at the Soil Association, stated his disappointment in response to the FSA’s review. He said: “There are limited studies available on the health benefits of organic versus non-organic food.

“Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review.”