A new study comparing organically grown vegetables with those grown with the help of pesticides suggests they offer no nutritional benefits. Can that be true?
Posted: 5 November 2010
by Laura Potter
Today's headlines are throwing the nutritional benefits of organic vegetables into question. A new study, undertaken at a Dutch university, grew potatoes, carrots and onions both organically and conventionally (with the use of pesticides and non-organic fertilisers) and concluded that organic vegetables 'do not have a higher concentration of health-benefitting substances than vegetables grown with conventional methods'. Does this mean it's time to cancel your organic veg box?
ZEST SAYS
It's worth looking at this study in greater depth. Researchers actually only grew and tested the nutritional benefits of three vegetables - carrots, onions and potatoes, so the findings can't really be applied to all organic vegetables. They also only looked at a limited number of nutritional values, namely the 'bioactive substances' in the veg - flavanoids and polyphenolers. Although these are linked to reduced risk of heart disease and cancer, they are by no means the only nutrients that boast disease-fighting properties. In fact an FSA study published last year showed that organic vegetables had 53.7% more beta-carotene (another proven cancer-fighter), 11.3% more zinc, and 38.4% more flavanoids - and that study reviewed 50 years of research comprising more than 3000 individual comparisons of nutrients, rather than simply three veggies.
Want to know which organic buys are worth you shelling out on?
