Weird; Science?

Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published this week. Really? Because I could swear that less chemicals and pesticide in our food would have a health benefit.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (who are now suspect - look at that name. Have you ever heard of them?) said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion as recently as 2007. A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference. "A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance." Hey, I just said that!

"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority." The research was commissioned by the British government's Food Standards Agency, and as a result they note, sales of organic food have fallen in some markets. Of course, that does not seem to take into account the global recession has led consumers to cut back on purchases.

The Soil Association (another group we've never known about until now) said in April that growth in sales of organic products in Britain slowed to just 1.7 percent in 2008, well below the average annual growth rate of 26 percent over the last decade, following a plunge in demand at the end of the year. Which suggests nothing about the healthy perception of organic food versus actual benefits, especially in context of this research. Reuters, is there an actual story or legit, relevant information here?