I am buried under a lot of work and other things, but what is the (food world) uproar about this study about? Organic food is no healthier than other food, supposedly. But the way I read it is that the study shows that organic food has no more nutrients than other food.
Did anyone ever think the point of organic food is that it has more nutrients? I thought the point was that the food was not layered with pesticides, and that occasionally it tasted better. But the way I see it, the study discussed neither of those issues.
7/30/2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yes, the Reuters headline is misleading. The study was focused solely on comparing a certain set of nutrients in organic vs. conventional foods. I've never heard anyone claim that organic oranges had more Vitamin C than the conventional kind. Also, every guide to buying organic I've seen has emphasized spending the money for foods where the pesticides, fertilizers and hormones are likely to pass on into your body (e.g. oranges and bananas have peels, so if you need to save money buy those conventional, but spend the extra for berries, dairy, etc.).
The point of organic food is also to maintain green practices and sustainability by not overloading soil and water sources with pesticides, which is just as important in the long run as how much of a particular nutrient the food itself has.
Also, I think that organic agriculture shows the true cost of food and how maybe we should stop over-consuming and wasting. I know some people think of this idea as elitist as some low income families cannot afford organic food as we know it today, but organic food could be managed in a smaller scale and locally, but I suppose the infrastructure is not in place for that to happen yet.
I agree on both points, Aran and PG.
By the way, if you haven't seen this, here is a list of the fruits/vegetables it's most worthwhile to purchase organic (with respect to pesticides, etc.):
http://www.foodnews.org/walletguide.php
Post a Comment