A new report from the Foods Standards Agency [FSA] has concluded that organic
food is no healthier than conventionally produced food. The FSA report was a
review of 162 articles published between 1958 and 2008 and concluded there was
only a "small number" of differences in the nutritional content of crops and
livestock.

Peter Melchett of the Soil Association says that the review did not include a
recent European Union-funded study which concluded that some "nutritionally
desirable compounds" were higher in organic crops.

There had not been enough research on the effects of pesticides, he said. "The
average apple may be sprayed up to 16 times with 30 different pesticides."

The review did not look at herbicide or pesticide use in food production, or the
environmental impacts of both types of production.

Jenny Wiggins, Consumer Correspondent of The Financial Times says that
proponents of organic food described say more research is needed, particularly
on the implications of pesticide use.

Dr Alan Dangour, the principal author of the FSA review says "There is currently
no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced
foods on the basis of nutritional superiority." According to the FSA there is
"no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food".

The FT comments that FSA report comes as sales of organic food, which boomed in
the middle of the decade, have fallen sharply as shoppers seek to economise. In
the four weeks to May, sales of organic produce dropped 13 per cent to £101m
compared with the same period a year earlier, the group said. In the 52 weeks to
May, sales were down 10 per cent to £1.35bn.

The UK's organic food market is worth more than £2bn and is the third largest in
Europe after Germany and Italy.