Today's headlines announce that a recent study has found organic milk to be healthier than conventionally produced. Dig a bit deeper and we find that's not what the study found at all.
The study was carried out by Newcastle University, and published yesterday in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. It compared nutritional content of milk from three production systems - low input organic, low input non organic, and high input conventional.
And here's the interesting bit. During the outdoor grazing period milk from low input non organic systems were just as rich in good essential fats and antioxidants as organic. Both were much richer than conventional high input milk. When the cows were housed, there was little difference in nutritional composition between high input and organic.
The increased fats and antioxidants cited in the study include Omega 3, Vitamins A and E, and conjugated linoleic acid which has been found to shrink cancerous tumours. Consumers are likely to feel that milk which contains more of them is a better buy.
The study shows that the difference between the two low input systems and the high input is the amount of fresh grass grazed, with an average high input cow having just 37% of her food from fresh grass compared with around 80% for the low input animal.
Of course in our sound bite society few journalists are going to delve into the detail of a heavyweight journal article, and uncover the facts that low input non organic is just as good as organic, and that the extra richness disappears from organic during the winter period. Hence the easy headlines that organic is better.
Nevertheless, the findings are significant for the dairy industry. At last there seems to be an opportunity to divide liquid milk into another market sector rather than just talk about organic and conventional. It is not too difficult to see an added value milk on shop shelves with a selling point about being from grass fed cows and therefore naturally higher in health benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment