African Woman and Child Feature Service

Less than three weeks ago after a British study demolished the long held belief that organic foods were of better nutrition and quality compared to conventionally grown crops, Kenyan consumers have gone into panic.

Local restaurants that sell organic foods are at pains to explain to them that indeed their foods have a better advantage over conventionally grown foods.

“Since the study was published, we have received several concerns from our consumers who want to know about these foods and if there is any nutritional difference,” says Bernard Njoka, the Manager of Bridges Organic Health Restaurant.

“Some of them have been asking us why we sell our foods more expensive and yet the study says there is no nutritional difference between organic and conventionally grown produce.”

Other curious consumers have even requested to know where the restaurant sources its food and from which farmers.

“For us, we have specific organic growers who supply us and who are registered as organic farmers. So there is no worry about our produce,” says Njoka.

He says the study missed the point and no matter what studies or critics of organic crops say, the crops remain superior to the conventionally grown ones.

“There is no question about organic foods having better nutrition than the conventionally grown crops.”

The study that has jolted the organic foods industry, making Kenyan consumers who are not known to be sensitive to these issues raising questions, was published recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The researchers who did the study say the thinking about the wonders of organic foods and practices is all a fallacy.

While organic producers and advocates of organic foods in Kenya claim that fresh organic food contain on average 50 percent more vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and other micronutritients and increased fertility among human beings and other animals than intensely farmed produce, the researchers found otherwise.

In their study, they found no significant difference between organic and inorganic foods in terms of nutrition content. It says those purchasing organic foods are doing so based on perceptions and not facts.

The team of scientists from London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who examined 162 papers that compared organic and conventionally produced foods said there is no evidence to back claims that organic food is more nutritious and healthy than conventionally grown food.

They argue studies have not been done to prove that organically grown crops are more nutritious compared to the conventionally grown crops. Of the 13 nutrients analyzed, 10 showed no significant difference in nutrient content.

“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,” says London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“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. Research in this area would benefit from greater scientific rigour and a better understanding of the various factors that determine the nutrient content of foodstuffs,” the researchers conclude.

Advocates and consumers of organic foods have come out to strongly to oppose the study findings. Jane Ogosia, a fervent believer of organic foods, said this is not true and she does not care a bit about nutritional differences.

“What bothers me are the pesticides and fertilizers used in the growing of crops in conventional farming. Those are things that make me avoid such foods”

She says she spends about Ksh 25,000 on organic fruits and vegetables every month, and she is not complaining.

Barbara Haumann, the Organic Trade Association that represents USA and Canada, is quoted in the National Post saying: “A lot of consumers do not want pesticides used on the land and the London study does not address those issues. Nor does it look at the use of antibiotics, which lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria and it does not address the issue of genetic engineering.”

“What we've said all along is that when a consumer buys an organic product he or she is supporting a system of agriculture that is healthier for the land and farmers producing that food because they're not exposed to pesticides.”

Other researchers have argued that advocates of organic foods have, without scientific proof, latched on the debate that conventionally grown foods are less healthy to win people towards organic produce. This has resulted in a massive global organic market worthy over US$ 50 billion.

“We know that the pesticides can cause birth defects, cancer, and endocrine disruption, but it remains unclear whether the amounts in conventionally grown fruit and vegetables are high enough to be a health hazard,” said New Scientist of September 2008, questioning the high premium placed on organic crops.

Similarly, they say contrarily to what is the popular belief, organic farms keep weeds down with propane burners that produce carbon dioxide contributing global warming just like inorganic farming.

Another fallacy is that organic crops conserves soil, say the researchers. They explain that organic farmers cause erosion by tilling the land so frequently to control weeds.

The current debate comes at a time when an increasing number of Kenyans are turning to organic food regardless of the pricing. At the moment, eating organic food is trendy for those who belief crops planted using artificial fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides are contaminated.

In leading supermarkets in Nairobi city, shoppers can be seen milling around fresh organic produce. The prices for the fruits and vegetables are at premium rate, indicating the value attached to these foods.

But the shoppers are not even concerned with the cost for they believe nutritive value of the foods outweighs the prices. The study published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is however making them have second thoughts.