Organic Chicken is Less Nutritious
Some people choose to eat organic food because they believe it is more nutritious. However, most research suggests that organically grown food does not contain more vitamins or minerals than other food. I don’t really have a problem with that but consuming pesticide, fertiliser, and other chemical residues is where I have a problem. I’ve yet to hear anyone say that a little bit pesticide in moderation will do you good.
I therefore found recent research reported in the UK stating that organic chicken is less nutritious, contains more fat, and more cholesterol to be a little pointless, and probably not true anyway.
Tests on supermarket chicken breasts showed that organic versions contained lower levels of health-boosting omega 3 fatty acids than other varieties, including non-organic free-range poultry.
Organic chicken, which typically costs nearly three times as much as battery-farmed poultry, also contained lower levels of anti-oxidants – compounds which mop up harmful molecules called free radicals that have been linked to cancer, heart disease and strokes.
Researcher Dr Alistair Paterson, of Strathclyde University, told the Sunday Times: It is safe to say that you are not getting any nutritional benefit from buying organic chicken.
Dr Paterson, a food technologist, said the difference in nutritional quality could partly be explained by the way the birds are fed. Synthetic vitamin supplements, which are routinely added to conventional feed, are banned under organic farming rules, as is feed with GM additives.
The Soil Association, which accredits organic poultry producers, disputed the Strathclyde University team’s findings yesterday.
Spokesman Hugh Raven said: This research contradicts the bulk of evidence which shows organic food is higher in omega 3, vitamins and minerals than conventional chicken.’
More Organic Articles
2 comments
2 Comments so far
Leave a reply
And yet, I watched a program yesterday where 3 chickens (1 intensively-reared, 1 corn-fed and barn-raised, and 1 organic & free range) were tested, and the results were the complete opposite of what has been published here. The experiment was conducted by a professional who had been studying intensively reared chickens for 30 years. The intensively reared chicken contained the highest levels of fat, and the lowest amount of omega 3, while the organic chicken had th lowest fat level and the highest omega 3. The omega 3 level was attributed to the chicken having free access to green grass. The corn fed chicken had fat levels just under that of the intensively reared bird,and also low levels of omega 3. Grains and seed provide omega 6, not 3.
How is it that two experiments yielded such opposing results?
Clearly the sample size is far from statistically significant so while interesting, proves absolutely nothing.
Either way, I’d never eating anything other than free range organic chicken, for so many reasons.