Is organic food better for you?

Organic food is a success story. If you think back to just 10 years ago, you hardly ever saw it for sale in supermarkets. Now all the main retailers sell organic fruit, vegetables and meat as well as processed food.

It is estimated that the sales of organic food have gone up by about tenfold in the past 10 years.

People who choose to go organic may do so for many reasons: because they think it tastes better, they believe that it's safer, more nutritious, better for the environment or better for animal welfare. Or perhaps simply because it's more 'natural'.

This is great. By offering extra choice organic food has enriched the food lives of consumers.

But our theme for today is 'Is organic food better for you?' In the next few minutes I want to share with you my thoughts on this question, but before that let me briefly explain the Food Standards Agency’s role in relation to organic food.

In the FSA we focus on the consumer. We are responsible for the safety of food, for healthy eating and choice. It is not our job to promote organic food production; nor are we responsible for animal welfare and environmental protection, except in so far as claims are made on food labels about these aspects.

Now for the question 'Is organic food better for you?'

In our view the current scientific evidence does not show that organic food is any safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food.

Nor are we alone in this assessment. For instance, the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) has recently published a comprehensive 128-page review which concludes that there is no difference in terms of food safety and nutrition.

Also, the Swedish National Food Administration’s recent research report finds no nutritional benefits of organic food.

The Consumers’ Association in its report in Which? magazine for May 2003 concludes that there is 'no consensus' on reports linking organic foods to health benefits.

But, of course, scientific evidence is dynamic (dare I say ‘organic’!) and therefore we must all be open to new evidence.

To stimulate discussion and thinking about future research on organic food and consumer choice, the FSA hosted a workshop last November.

The lively discussions in the workshop showed how devising the right research in this area is not that straightforward.

Suppose, for example, you wanted to find out if organic food is better for you because it is more nutritious.

Which nutrients should you measure?

Should you compare the produce as its comes out of the ground or as it is sold in the shops?

Would you count any nutrient difference as important, or only differences that can be shown to have an effect on health?

I am not going to answer these questions now, although perhaps some of you will have views. But I can say that the Agency is prepared to fund further research on both nutritional and safety aspects of organic and conventional food, provided that appropriate questions can be identified.

Research will inevitably take time. So, meanwhile, here are some thoughts, relevant to all food, whether or not it’s organic.

First, for consumers.

Consumers are right to be concerned about their diet and health. Diet probably contributes as much as one third of the risk to two big killers – cancer and cardiovascular disease.

This is why the Food Standards Agency, together with UK Health Departments, has made diet and health a priority.

We aim to help to bring about the changes in diet that will improve people’s health.

This is why we have been working to reduce the salt content of processed food – we all eat too much salt – as well as encouraging people to eat more fruit and vegetables and less sugar and saturated fat.

We know that these changes to our diets will bring real health benefits. And it is the overall nutritional balance of the diet that counts, rather than differences in the nutritional content of individual foods.

Second, for producers.

The safety and quality of our food depends on the care and controls in place throughout the food chain – whether it is hygiene in the abattoir, in the restaurant, or in the home.

There can be good and bad practice in conventional and organic production alike.

Take pesticide residues, for instance.

The safety levels for pesticide residues in food are assessed by independent scientific experts, and they take into account the uncertainties by including a large safety margin.

But, nevertheless, many people would prefer not to have detectable residues in their food, even if they are not a risk to health.

So the FSA is pressing for reduction of pesticide residues in food.

Organic food contains fewer residues of pesticides used in conventional agriculture, so buying organic is one way to reduce the chances that your food contains these pesticides.

But it is also possible to produce conventionally grown fruit and vegetables with minimal residues.

In fact, residues are not detected in about 70% of produce sampled by the Pesticides Residue Committee. And remember that the committee tends to focus on problem crops.

So, our view is that minimising residues is not just about organic versus conventional food: it’s about good practice by producers, whatever method they use.

The same could be said of veterinary medicines.

And the Agency's view is that on a precautionary basis antibiotics should not be used as growth promoters.

Authenticity is important for both producers and consumers. People want to know that the food they buy is what it claims to be and producers want people to have confidence.

At the moment, the only way you can tell your food is organic is by the claim on the label. But we are developing chemical tests that will enable us to check for fraud.

Thirdly, for all of us.

We all have a duty to our grandchildren to work towards more sustainable ways of producing our food.

The Green Revolution has brought us plentiful and affordable food, but at an environmental cost.

In the future we must develop ways of producing food that people can afford to buy in ways that give Nature more of a chance.