Quality Conlusion?

The FSA website claims that there are “no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food”.

However the research on which this claim is based does support this statement. Its conclusions say that there is “no evidence of health benefits from consuming organic compared to conventionally produced foods” and that “no evidence was detected” of differences between organic and conventional foods in respect of the majority of nutrients . It also laments the absence of high quality studies on these subjects.

It is a shame, then, that the FSA claims it does not have an axe to grind, being “neither pro nor anti organic food”. If that were the case, wouldn’t the proper headline be something like “we just don’t know whether organic food makes any difference – and we would like to find out”?

Could it be that the FSA has been leant on by…someone?