London, Feb 24 (UNI) Debunking the myth of superiority of organic food over ordinary one, leading scientists have claimed that the former is not healthier than the latter.
There was little evidence that an organic diet provides greater nutritional benefits or that non-organic crops grown using pesticides and chemical fertilisers are more harmful than their organic competitors, the scientists claimed.
Tom Sanders, the professor of nutrition and dietetics at Kings College London, claimed that organic food has no higher nutritional value compared to conventional food, the Daily Telegraph reported.
''It is a fantastic opportunity to make money out of people because you can charge more for the food,'' he said.
Prof Sanders also attacked arguments that animal welfare in organic meat was far better.
As health is the major motivational factor behind purchase of organic products, producers point to research showing that organic food contains higher levels of nutrients, but scientists claim there were just as many studies that have found no added benefits.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA), which issues advice to consumers, also stated that organic food is ''not significantly different'' from food produced conventionally.
UNI XC SKB GC1715