A recently published Standford study casts doubt on benefits of organic, but only if you don’t ask all the pertinent questions
There are glaring problems and omissions with the recently published research regarding organic produce. The scientists looked at studies that asked which product has more vitamin C or other specific nutrient, foods grown organically or foods grown with conventional farming methods.
This is classic reductionist thinking. The researchers are focused on quantifying specific nutrients instead of looking at the full impact of conventional farming versus the full impact of organic farming. In the grand scheme of our food supply, it is foolhardy to be preoccupied with which product has more vitamin C if one form of farming pollutes the water supply, creates dead zones in the oceans, compromises biodiversity, encourages pests to become more resistant to pesticides, encourages bacteria to be more resistant to antibiotics, and spews chemicals in the environment that are known to impair thyroid function, glucose tolerance, increase risk of cancer and more.
MORE THAN VITAMINS AND MINERALS
Food is much more than merely a delivery system for vitamins and minerals. The limits of this review are many. There is not enough attention to the consequence of pesticides and petroleum based fertilizers. There is no attention to the ecology of the soil or run off creating dead zones in the oceans. There is virtually no attention to the cost of contaminating our planet and compromising biodiversity.
And the biggest problem of all? No reality check with what matters to consumers: which one tastes better? Have you tasted both? Which do you prefer? Produce that is cultivated for taste or produce cultivated to look good and travel far no matter what.