[Editors note:Bjorn Lomborgis director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and avisiting professor atCopenhagen Business School.]

There are no health benefits from eating organic food. And it is likely worse for the environment.

Back in 2012, Stanford Universitys Center for Health Policy did the largest comparison of four decades worth of research comparing organic and regular food. They expected to find evidence that organics were nutritionally superior.Their conclusion: Despite the widespread perception that organically produced foods are more nutritious than conventional alternatives, we did not find robust evidence to support this perception.

A brandnew review this year shows the same thing: Results of scientific studies do not show that organic products are more nutritious and safer than conventional foods.

A big study in Europe found that to produce the same gallon of milk organically, you need 59% more land. To produce meat, you need 82% more land, and for crops, it is more than 200%.That adds up to a lot of forest and nature being turned into farms for people in Portland, Ore., or Providence, R.I., to feel better about their choices at the supermarket.

If U.S. agricultural production wereentirely organic, it would mean wedneed to convert an area biggerthan the size of Californiato farmland.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post:Organic food is great business, but a bad investment: Bjorn Lomborg

See more here:

Video: Organic food is a great business but a bad environmental investment - Genetic Literacy Project