By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 8:45 AM on 23rd February 2011

The organic 'back to nature' approach to gardening - doing away with artificial chemicals - will not deliver healthier or more tasty produce, it is claimed.

A controversial new study from Which? Gardening suggests produce grown using modern, artificial, methods may well be better for you.

Healthier: A controversial study says that produce grown using more modern methods may actually be better for you

Healthier: A controversial study says that produce grown using more modern methods may actually be better for you

The claims follow a two year study growing potatoes, broccoli and tomatoes and will alarm producers and consumers who put their faith in natural food.

Organic bodies have rejected the claims, insisting the trial was too small to offer meaningful results. However, they will come as a severe blow to the industry's reputation.

The non-organic broccoli or calabrese was found to have significantly higher levels of antioxidants than the organically grown samples.

Antioxidants are beneficial chemicals that are said to improve general health and help prevent cancer.

The research found the non-organic potatoes contained more Vitamin C than the organic crop.

While a panel of expert tasters found that the non-organically grown tomatoes had a stronger tomato flavour and were slightly sweeter than the organic samples.

Some 30per cent of the population regularly buy organic produce with sales put at 1.84 billion a year. At the same time, an increasingly number of families are choosing to grow veg and fruit using organic methods.

During trials at an allotment in the Cotswolds, the ground for the non-organic potatoes and broccoli was sprayed with weedkiller and later the fertiliser Growmore. By contrast the organic plot was dug over and manure added.

The experts also treated the conventional crops with pesticides, such as metaldehyde slug pellets and dithane.

With the tomatoes, one set were grown in organic peat-free grow bags and the other in the non-organic equivalent. They were given either an organic or conventional feed.

The subsequent nutritrition and taste tests demonstrated the conventional crops were at least as good as organic and, in some areas, significantly better. The yields and physical appearance were about the same.

Ceri Thomas, editor of Which? Gardening, said: 'The surprising results of this small-scale trial call into question a lot of preconceptions about the taste and nutritional value of organic vegetables.

'However, this trial didn't look at other benefits of going organic, such as the impact on the environment. Whatever methods you use, any gardener will tell you that home grown fruit and veg beat supermarket fare hands down.'

Emma Hockridge, head of policy at the Soil Association, insisted the findings were not significant and described the Which? research as 'irresponsible'.

'This is an unscientific study of an extremely limited sample of vegetables,' she said.

'Which? Gardening admit the narrow scope of their research, which does not address the main reason people choose to garden organically - namely that the absence of chemical pesticides and artificial fertilisers means it is better for the environment, better for wildlife and safer for all the family, including pets.

'It is a much wider issue than just taste and health.'

She said: 'More conclusive research needs to be done comparing organic vs non-organic food in terms of nutrient content but a recent, more comprehensive, European study shows that it is mainly artificial fertilisers that depress beneficial nutrients in fruit and vegetables, so generally all organic food will contain more healthy nutrients.

'Generations of gardeners have recognised the importance of using organic techniques for the fruit and vegetables they produce for their families.

'Most gardeners recognise that heavily marketed and expensive artificial fertilisers and chemical pesticides are not beneficial for the planet or their family's health.'

She added: 'For legions of gardeners, the thought of spraying chemicals over their home grown produce is unthinkable. More and more research is showing the negative impacts of pesticide use.

'It is irresponsible that Which? have been using pesticides which have been strongly implicated in the rapid decline in the bee population, along with a range of other pesticides including metaldehyde which is fatal to animals and costs water companies millions of pounds every year in clean up costs.

'Gardeners across the country are proving that they are able to grow excellent and tasty produce without using pesticides and artificial fertilisers.'

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below, or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

I always knew that paying twice the price for one's basic food was a scam. If you go through your basic whole foods for instance, while the produce looks rich and delicious, it is up to twice the price and you'll see a lot of gimmicky stuff like homeopathy, hemp drinks, random herbal supplements, etc. Organic is really a luxury item for upper class primarily Caucasian clients in urban areas. I don't like pesticides in my food either but I understand that they improve the yield thus requiring less acreage for growing food. Isn't that environmentally friendly?

Report abuse

While I'm prepared to accept that nutritionally the non-organic vegetables were superior in this particular trial, I feel that Which? have been very lax in their objectivity. Surely they should also have examined the produce for pesticide residues? The main reason I would like to be able to grow my own produce is to avoid ingesting even tiny amounts of pesticide. I am not a mad environmentalist at all, and believe that much of the ecological movement is fanatical and self-righteous. For this reason, if pesticide levels were extremely low in non-organic produce this would influence me to feel happier about buying them. As it is, like other comments here, I find that organic food lasts such a short time once picked that buying it is a waste of money, so, reluctantly I buy non-organic. Which? have simply confused me.

Report abuse

What a pathetic and ignorant statement. Anything with chemicals in is proven to cause problems later on in life - alzheimers, loss of eyesight, the list is endless and has been researched in America. Idiots you are for printing such rubbish. Pesicides are more harmful than anyone realises - do your homework!!!!!

Report abuse

The head line "Smoking is good for you only if you inhale deeply" cannot be far away !

Report abuse

I bought some organic veg from a farm shop once. What we didn't eat that day was all rotten by the next day. Never again.

Report abuse

It is important to recognize that the findings of the Which? study are based on organic gardening, which is not the same as certified organic farming. As the article itself notes, Gardening organically and farming organically are very different." As such, the results of the study should not be construed to reflect the nutritional quality or the taste of products produced from certified organic farming. It is also worth noting that the differences between the organic and non-organic produce examined in the Which? study were small.The study also revealed that the produce raised organically exhibited several positive characteristics. The organic potatoes, for example, had slightly less scab and cracking than their non-organic counterparts. Together, these findings illustrate that, at best, more research needs to be done before concluding which method of gardening, organic or non-organic, yields the most flavorful and nutritious produce.

Report abuse

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.