![\"organics\"](\"http:\/\/www.timesonline.co.uk\/multimedia\/archive\/00202\/organicbox385_202823a.jpg\")
A new British scientific review claiming that organically grown fruits and vegetables are not nutritionally superior to conventional foods, has generated a heated debate on both sides of the Atlantic. Alan Dangour of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine reviewed 162 scientific papers over the last 50 years to come to the conclusion. But many supporters of organic agriculture immediately began refuting the study, pointing to its narrowness and selectivity. The study discounted several instances of organic foods having greater amounts of nutrients than conventional as “statistically insignificant.” Additionally, it only compared beneficial chemicals rather than toxic additives, which conventional produce is more likely to contain since it is grown with the use of pesticides and artificial fertilizers. Here in the United States, an important moment is approaching for those invested in organic foods: the US Department of Agriculture is on the verge of announcing new members of the National Organic Standards Board. The Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy group has urged the USDA to make the process of selection to this influential board public and transparent. <\/p>\n
GUESTS: Paula Crossfield, managing editor of Civil Eats, and a regular contributor to the Huffington Post’s Green Page, Mark Kastel, co-director of the Cornucopia Institute<\/em>. For more information, visit www.cornucopia.org<\/a>. <\/p>\n