Nutritional evidence lacking

NANAIMO: Re: Alternative to market food costly to health, Letters, Aug 25.

To the Editor,

Re: Alternative to market food costly to health, Letters, Aug 25.

The belief in the superiority of organic food is widespread. That does not make it true.

The Food Standard Agency in the U.K. released its report on this subject in 2009. Organic food is no healthier and provides no significant nutritional benefit compared with conventionally-produced food, according to a new, independent study funded by the Food Standards Agency.

Alan Dangour, who led the review by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said, “Most studies were based on the hypothesis that eating organic food is beneficial to health. Looking at all of the studies published in the last 50 years, we have concluded that there’s no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health based on the nutrient content.”

Organic food supporters also like to vilify food from genetically modified crops. Yet, there has never been a single documented case of harm from consuming food containing GM ingredients. Even the skeptical Europeans come to the conclusion that GM foods are safe.

The A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research said, “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”

There may be many reasons to support local food producers, but alleged superior nutrition of organic produce and alleged dangers of GM food safety are not one of them.

Robert Wager

Nanaimo