A few weeks ago, the Food Standards Agency （FSA） in the UK issued a report evaluating nutrient levels in organic versus non-organic foods like fruits, vegetables, meats, eggs, and dairy products. A team at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine systematically reviewed 162 studies from more than 50 years of research and 3,558 comparisons of nutritional value in food. It is a complete, rigorous piece of research. And they found that, in terms of nutritional content, the differences between organic and non-organic foods are negligible.

As the report states, "…organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content." They did in fact find some nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods （non-organic crops contain more nitrogen, while organic crops have higher levels of magnesium and zinc, for instance）, but concluded that it is "unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to consumer health."

So here we have a nicely delimited study of available research with rigorous standards and a fairly worded conclusion, all publicly available to download and read on the FSA website. The reaction, not surprisingly, was spectacular. The British tabloids alternately hooted with delight at the comeuppance of posh bourgeois shopping habits or derisively attacked the study for insulting the people's common sense. But it was the reaction of the Soil Association, the leading British organic certification organization, which highlighted just how difficult it can be for good science to be understood.

The Soil Association's response, published in papers across the land, entirely disregarded the intent of the study and instead argued that organic food is better for the environment and contains less pesticides than non-organic food. But in the very first paragraph of the report, the team states that they aren't looking at the impact on the environment of organic agriculture or the effect of pesticide use, both of which the FSA has extensively examined in other research. They are specifically looking at nutritional comparison. The Soil Association further argued that the FSA report had ignored studies that showed any benefit of organic food. It was the kind of petulant response worthy of a misinformed PR flack with a nation to persuade. As Ben Goldacre incisively dissected on his popular blog,Bad Science, the Soil Association's response was logically flawed and entirely beside the point.

The FSA study is good science and by attacking, rather than endorsing it, the organic lobby in the UK has been plainly unscientific. It's hardly the right stance for an organization that carries such widespread support from the well-educated, critical-thinking middle classes who choose to eat organic food. Any of the many other reasons to go organic-whether it is to avoid pesticides, to encourage better livestock practices, or to simply eat better tasting food-are sufficient to continue supporting the efforts of organic farmers. By misrepresenting the science and its intent, the Soil Association has damaged its credibility and objectivity, the very attributes that its organic label-a stamp of approval-is intended to convey.

In the United States this week, the USDA announced that it would be auditing the National Organic Program, which administers production, handling, and labeling standards for all US organic food. The intent of the audit is to, among other things, "build the organic community's trust in the program." As Marion Nestle, author of What to Eat points out on her blog, Food Politics, the US public "deeply distrusts the integrity of the organic standards, the honesty of the inspection process, and the claims made for the benefits of organic foods." If the example in the UK is anything to go by, the US consumer has every reason to be skeptical.

几周以前，英国的食品标准局（FSA）发表了一份报告，报告评估了有机生产的水果、蔬菜、肉类、鸡蛋和奶制品等与非有机生产的同类食品营养水平的差异。伦敦卫生及热带医学学院的一个研究团队系统回顾了过去50多年中针对3558种食品营养价值比较的162项研究成果。这是一项完整而严谨的研究。通过研究他们发现，在营养成分上，有机和非有机食品间的差距可以忽略不计。

研究报告指出："有机生产与常规生产的农作物及牲畜产品在营养成分上基本没有差别。"研究小组也确实发现了有机食品与非有机食品在营养成分上的一些细微区别（例如非有机生产的农作物氮含量更高，而有机生产的农作物镁、锌含量则略高）,不过报告的结论同时承认"这些营养成分的差异不大可能对消费者的健康产生影响。"

因此，通过使用严格的标准对现有研究成果进行评估，报告得出了一个相当明确的结论，其全文可在FSA的网站上下载阅读。这一报告毫无悬念地引起了强烈的反响。英国报章的反应十分两极化：一些报章声称这一研究结果是对资产阶级奢侈购物习惯的极大讽刺，另一些则攻击说这一研究结果侮辱大众的常识。然而英国土壤协会这一在英国有机食品认证中居于领导地位的机构所做出的反应则实在地表明一项优秀的科研成果要被人所理解是多么地困难。

英国土壤协会发表在公开刊物上的回应完全无视这一研究的初衷，并辩称有机食品中农药的水平更低，更有利于环境保护。而研究小组在FSA报告的第一段就特别声明本项研究并不关注有机农业或农药对环境的影响。本次研究只针对营养成分的对比。其余两部分的内容FSA都在另外的专门研究中进行了深入的探讨。英国土壤协会进一步辩称FSA的报告完全忽略了那些表明有机食品具有优越性的研究成果。这一反应显得情绪化并且在公关上也不够成功。本。高德克里在他那广受欢迎的博客"科学的负面"中一针见血的指出，英国土壤协会的反应逻辑混乱并且离题万里。

FSA的研究十分出色，有机食品业者大肆攻击这一研究结果而不是赞同其正确性的做法显然不够科学。对于英国土壤协会这样一个受到喜好有机食品的中产阶级精英广泛支持的组织来说，这绝对不是正确的立场。对于继续支持有机农业农场主来说，选择有机食品的其他那些理由已经足够。例如为了避免农药残留、改善畜牧业条件抑或单纯地地为了品尝更好的食物。通过扭曲科学研究及其初衷，英国土壤协会的可信性及客观性都受到了严重的损害。

美国农业部近期也宣布将审议其监管全美有机食品生产、处理及贴标标准的"国家有机农业计划".审议计划的目的是为了"建立有机农业界的信誉","吃什么？"一书的作者玛瑞安。耐斯特里在她的博客"食品政策"中指出，美国公众"对有机食品标准、检验过程的诚信度以及对有机食品优点的宣传充满了不信任感。"如果说英国发生的事情具有借鉴意义的话，那么美国的消费者也完全有充足的理由对有机食品业表示怀疑。