There may not be significant differences in vitamin or mineral content, but organic food is still a far healthier choice for your body and the planet, says Hilly Janes
A recent overview of research at Stanford University in California prompted another bout of the quibbles over the virtues of organic food. It claimed that there is no significant difference in the nutritional value of organic food.
But the Green & Blacks founder Craig Sams says that the researchers simply "don't get it. They probably never will." Sams, who also founded Whole Earth (our favourite crunchy peanut butter ever) points out that there are plenty of other benefits to organic produce. It has fewer additives and "hidden" ingredients, like sugar masquerading as maltodextrin, for example.
There are animal welfare and environmental advantages too: it's probably a lot more fun being a cow fed on grass or a chicken on corn than being pumped full of anti-biotics and growth promoting hormones, and it takes chemical pesticides and fertilisers out of the farming equation, which promotes wildlife and soil quality. "So who really gives a toss about tiny differences in vitamins and minerals?" asks Sams in an outspoken editorial for Natural Products .
If organic produce is too pricey for you, try switching to a few basics such as organic carrots ( I swear they are tastier) or milk, which only cost a few pence more, or blowing a bit extra on one cut of organic meat a week, which can stretch to a Sunday roast, leftovers and stock made from the bones.