New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food

[Freshy-ZN]

"In the largest study of its kind, an international team of experts led by Newcastle University, UK, has proved that organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 60% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops"

"The findings contradict those of a 2009 UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) commissioned study which found there were no substantial differences or significant nutritional benefits from organic food."

“The organic vs non-organic debate has rumbled on for decades now but the evidence from this study is overwhelming – that organic food is high in antioxidants and lower in toxic metals and pesticides."

Source: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/nefg/QOF/page.php?page=1

 

[noxibox]

Criticised here.

In a review, they look at no data, of course, and 343 papers becomes the problem rather than the solution when the methodology is flawed. Meta-analysis, as everyone with statistics knowledge knows, can boost the strength of systematic reviews when done properly but easily suffers from bias unless the researchers are truly interested in controlling eligibility criteria and methodological quality. Without controlled eligibility, it’s easy to find any pattern you want.

Others note that the study targets ten groups of chemicals, including conventional pesticide residues, antioxidants and metals, but does not examine other pertinent chemicals such as pesticides commonly used in organic agriculture that are approved by the National Organic Program. While synthetic pesticides are not used in organic agriculture, organic pesticides such as rotenone and pyrethrin are used as these chemicals are produced by plant sources and considered ‘natural,’ even though they might be more toxic to people than some synthetic alternatives.