The study was done by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and commissioned by the Food Standards Agency of the British government. It consisted of a review of 162 published research papers from the scientific literature over the past 50 years. Although some organic foods did contain more nutrients than their conventionally produced counterparts, these differences were not felt to be significant from a public-health perspective.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE56S3ZJ20090729

Critics of the study argue that it ignores the negative/toxic effects of pesticides and other chemicals on food, that many of the research papers chosen for the study are of poor quality, and that previous reports showing the benefits of organic foods were omitted from the study.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/organic-food-nutrition-fsa

This looks like a straightforward, government-funded study. Depending on the attitude of the British government toward science, this could be either a plus or a minus in terms of the study's objectivity.

Asker's Rating:

Permalink | Report