Promoters defend organic food after Stanford study shows it's no healthier
Stanford study finds few nutritional benefits over regular grocery products
Promoters of organic produce yesterday defended its worth, after a major American study found little evidence it is much healthier than conventional food.
The Stanford University study said a lack of pesticides and antibiotics was the principal benefit of organic produce, which was not more nutritious. The research analysed the findings of 237 studies that compared both types of food.
Organic food was 30 per cent less likely to contain detectable pesticide levels, though the amount of pesticides measured in conventionally grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers said in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
Simon Wong Ka-wo, chairman of the Association of Green Organic Living, said the organic label was significant as proof against harmful substances.
"Nutrition-wise, organic food could be similar to normal food," Wong said. "But it guarantees the absence of pesticides and growth hormones."
Hong Kong has no specific regulations governing organic food. Imported organic products are certified by various foreign bodies, while domestic produce is certified by two local private agencies.