Organic and conventional meat differ little in nutrition, watchdog says

Organic meat and conventional meat have little difference in nutritional value, Marge Tava, founder of the non-profit Food Guards, told Vikerraadio, according to ERR. She said organic farming was better in terms of how animals are treated, but argued that nutrition alone offered little basis for saying organic meat was much better.

Tava said shoppers’ choices determine which products remain available. If consumers do not buy high-quality Estonian grass-fed beef, she said, it may disappear from shop ranges. Many small meat producers still want to reach customers, but some large supermarket chains do not stock their products. Tava said consumers could buy directly from producers, many of which have online shops.

She also warned that fruit sold in shops may sometimes be from the previous season. In meat processing, she said, producers may add water and phosphates to ham to increase its weight and retain moisture. Nitrates are used to keep ham pink. Tava said the need to extend shelf life was one reason for such processing, adding that industrially produced food should support health rather than be dismissed as inherently bad.

Tava said some research had found no higher nutritional value in cheaper salmon than in more expensive salmon. She also noted theories that meat quality can depend on how soon it is processed after an animal is slaughtered.

Responding to complaints about liquid in packages of Tallegg chicken, Tava said the company does not use an absorbent pad, and that the tray has a perforated base. She said liquid can gradually seep from the chicken as it sits in the package, especially as its use-by date approaches, but that this does not mean the meat is lower quality. She suggested briefly placing the fillet in lightly salted water before cooking to keep it moist.