I've seen yet another study that has got me going... Today on Reuters "Organic food is no healthier..." Within the article researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said, "consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits... [when] a systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference."
Okay, yet another incredibly short sighted and reductionistic view of the issues at hand. First off, yes, it is easy to believe that an organic tomato would contain the same nutrients as a non organic tomato... it's not like they are completely different foods, but what of the health repercussions of how that tomato was farmed? The nutrition may be the same, but Big Picture, they are in different leagues! What about the chemicals, that one way or the other make it back into our lives and have health implications? What about the health of our planet... the only one we all have to live on? What about the health of our children and their children as the runoff continues to pollute and change their environment in not so small ways? And, when it comes to meats, dairy and eggs, what about the quality of life for other living creatures?
And what about that word "significant?" As in: "there are no significant differences." Don't they find nuanced, tiny changes that mean the difference between health & illness, or varying degrees of health ALL THE TIME? In a science that comes down to genes, chemical variations, and an intricate balance of many many tiny nuanced variables, couldn't even a small difference possibly have big implications?
What study could possibly encompass all these facets of whether organic is "healthier" or not. It's too gray... it's too circular... it's too real! As for me. I'll stick to eating as much organic and ethically made real foods as possible. Even if the nutrition is the same, the Big Picture benefits are clear to me!
Post a Comment