A report from a group of English researchers who claim to have conducted "the most extensive systematic review of the available published literature on nutrient content of organic food ever conducted," downplayed their own results that favored organic food, and failed to consider the use of toxic pesticides or chemical additives when forming their conclusions.

The study, "Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review," prepared by individuals at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, examined thirteen different nutrients. The authors found a significant difference in three of thirteen that favored organic, none that favored conventionally grown produce, yet they reported that there were no differences between the two types of food.

The London team also included studies from the 1950's, 60's, and 70's that analyzed crop varieties that are no longer grown, and failed to include 15 studies published since 2008 that all found important nutritional advantages for organic food. The study also failed to examine differences in total anti-oxidant content.

"The Science has consistently shown that organic food provides higher levels of Vitamin C and total antioxidants, two nutrients that the American public needs more of," said Richard Wiles, Senior Vice President for Policy and Communications with the Environmental Working Group. "The London study is not supported by the majority of the science. We should not attach too much significance to its findings until it can be replicated," Wiles added..............................
http://www.1to1vitamins.com/news/2009/artl7490.html