Every so often people opposed to the notion of changing the way we farm to a more long-term, sustainable approach say things amounting to, “there’s no evidence that organic food is any better anyway”. When we say “organic” we can read “conscious, caring, sustainable” farming and the answer to statements like that one is “bollocks”, but that probably won’t carry the day in any argument. So it is very useful when a big study comes along that says, guess what, organic milk and meat is nutritionally superior to the equivalent that is conventionally farmed.

The study was led by Newcastle University (UK) and examined 196 previous studies on milk and 67 studies on meat. The studies drew on data from around the world and the aggregated findings were significant.

We know that omega-3 fats are important for nervous system development, immune function, and to reduce heart disease risk. The results showed that organic milk contained significantly more omega-3 fat than conventionally produced milk. Half a litre of organic full fat milk contains about 39 mg of omega-3 (that’s 16 per cent of the daily requirement) whereas conventionally raised milk contains about 25mg of omega-3 (about 11 per cent of the RDI).

On top of that organic meat had lower levels of the saturated fatty acids myristic and palmitic acid. Organic milk also contains higher levels of fat soluble vitamins (vitamin E and carotenoids) as well as 40 per cent more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which has been associated with lowering body fat levels.

The more desirable fat profiled in organic milk and meat were closely associated with outdoor grazing and low concentrate feeding of the cattle as is prescribed by organic farming standards.

As far as organic, sustainable farming goes when it comes to future farming we need to stop arguing about the “why” and the \”if\” start looking at the “how”.

Organic food makes sense. There are lots of logical reasons why food grown without synthetic fertilisers in a non-monoculture system and using greater care and natural methods would be better for you. Nevertheless, that logic is often challenged. Sometimes the challenge comes from vested interests in the conventional agriculture field, sometimes it can be from well-meaning media outlets with limited resources to do the proper research, or it might come from programs where the aim is to be humorous and it is easier to lampoon claims you believe to be false than to find wit through reporting genuine claims. However, not all negativity around organics has come from dubious sources. It has to be said that some questioning of organics has come from reputable research institutions like Stanford University School of Medicine (2012) in the US and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (2009) in the UK. In the last couple of weeks however, a new analysis from Newcastle University (UK), incorporating more data than either of those two earlier studies, has found that organic food is significantly nutritionally different to conventionally grown produce.

Before we go on it will help to define terms. Certified organic food is grown without synthetic chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) to protect it and without synthetic fertiliser. Instead, organic crops are grown using organic fertilisers like manure and compost, the soil is managed and enriched using crop rotation methods, and pests and weeds are managed by mechanical weeding, companion planting and biological pest control.

In the new analysis, the researchers looked at data from 343 studies that compared the compositional differences between organic and conventionally grown crops. The researchers say that, compared to the two earlier studies which found only weak and insignificant differences between organic and conventional crops, the new research was able to draw on a much larger and higher quality set of studies.

The analysis found that in organic crops the concentrations of antioxidant phenols was between 18 and 69 per cent higher than in conventional crops. Organic crops also had an average 48 per cent less of the toxic metal cadmium. Pesticide residues were also four times less likely to be found on organic foods.

The clear conclusion from this is that there are significant and beneficial compositional differences between organic and conventionally grown food. This study does not show what the effect of these differences are, but it does show they are there. So logic and common sense do hold true; eating organic food is worth it.