An independent review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has indicated that there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food. The focus of the review was the nutritional content of foodstuffs. The study, which took the form of a 'systematic review of literature', was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and included a review of all papers published over the past 50 years that related to the nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food. This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food. Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health, said: "Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat. This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food. "The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food. We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence."