Large Medium Small |
Food watchdogs have rejected claims that expensive organic milk is any healthier than its conventional equivalent.
A succession of studies in Britain and around the world have found higher levels of vital nutrients, particularly omega-3.
However, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) yesterday triggered a row with the organic lobby by ruling the milk does not offer any health benefits.
The decision is a body blow to organic dairy farmers, who have seen a boom in sales on the back of a belief that it is healthier, particularly for children.
A three-year study conducted at the Universities of Glasgow and Liverpool found organic milk contained 68per cent more omega-3 fatty acids on average than conventional milk.
Omega-3s are considered to cut consumers' risk of heart disease, and have been linked with better concentration in children.
The findings led 14 scientists from around the world to sign a letter asking the FSA to recognise the nutritional advantages of the milk.
Such a pronouncement would have been a huge boost to the standing of organic agriculture and, particularly, organic milk.
However, the FSA yesterday rejected any health benefits following consultations with leading experts.
The verdict means parents and others may now think twice about spending more on organic milk. A four pint container is £1.40, which is a mark-up of 26per cent on the £1.11 charged for the conventional equivalent.
A report published by the FSA accepts that organic milk 'can contain higher levels of types of fats called short-chain omega-3 fatty acids than conventionally produced milk'.
But it dismisses the signicance of this saying these are of "limited health benefit" compared to the longer chain omega-3 fatty acids found in oily fish.
And, it adds: "Therefore, organic milk consumed in volumes consistent with a healthy diet, would not provide sufficient amounts of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids to provide significant health benefits, over and above those associated with conventional milk."
Chairman of the FSA, Dame Deirde Hutton, confirmed the verdict in a letter to the academics behind the original study stating: "It would therefore not be appropriate to advise consumers to switch to organic milk for reasons related to dietary health."
The official watchdog has, in the past, faced claims that it is biased against organic agriculture. Dame Deirdre's predecessor, Sir John Krebs, was particularly sceptical.
The FSA's findings have surprised and upset organic farming supporters as well as the scientists involved in the Glasgow and Liverpool study.
A number of research projects have highlighted apparent nutritional benefits in organic milk.
Apart from the increased omega-3, there are significantly higher levels of vitamin E, beta-carotene, lutein and zeaxanthine.
This has been attributed to the more natural diet of the cows, which is particularly high in clover.
Publicity for this research has driven a remarkable boom in sales, with consumption up a staggering 50per cent in the past year. Some supermarkets, such as Tesco, have resorted to importing supplies from Europe.
The Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, challenged the FSA's conclusions.
Policy chief Peter Melchett said there was positive news in that the FSA had acknowledged the higher content of short-chain Omega-3s. However, he said there is a dispute about its significance.
He said many people, particularly young women, can convert a significant proportion of these to the more beneficial long-chain fatty acids in their bodies.
Lord Melchett said: "The scientists never suggested that organic milk was a substitute for eating oily fish. It is not, but there are significant nutritional differences.
"Knowing that, we believe that people are bright enough to make up their own minds on whether organic milk is better for them.
"I don't believe this will news will harm sales. The growth of organic milk has a momentum of its own. Demand is growing so strongly that we are struggling to keep up."