Kruse Kronicle

Organic Food Isn’t More Nutritious, but That Isn’t the Point

—

by

mwkruse
in , ,

Atlantic: Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious, but That Isn't the Point

That doesn't mean it's not healthier. How our obsession with organics' "healthiness" led us away from the term's roots.

But from Stanford University comes new research suggesting what we should have known all along: organic food isn't actually more nutritious than traditionally-farmed goods.

In a widely publicized and discussed analysis of more than 200 studies comparing organic to regular food products, researchers have found that organics don't have more vitamins or minerals (with the lone exception of phosphorus, which we all get in sufficient amounts anyway). Nor do they have an appreciable effect when it comes to heading off food-borne illness, although the germs found in conventional meat do have a higher chance of being drug-resistant (more on that in a bit)….

… It's worth keeping in mind that organic refers only to a particular method of production; while switching to organic foods can be good for you insofar as doing so helps you avoid nasty things like chemicals and additives, there's nothing in the organic foods themselves that gives them an inherent nutritional advantage over non-organics. In other words, it's not wrong to say organic food is "healthier" than non-organics. It's just unrealistic to think that your organic diet is slowly turning you into Clark Kent. …

… For all the attention devoted to the ways organic is better for you, we should remember that organic began chiefly as an argument about the environment. From the agency's perspective, to buy organic is to respect the land your food came from. It means taking pains to ensure that your farms remain bountiful and productive, even decades from now. The case is one part self-interest over the long term, and one part a statement of ethics. Not really what you'd expect from a mechanical bureaucratic institution.

Buying organic is also a statement about public health. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of antibiotics. Conventional farms have been putting the stuff in animal feed for decades — even though we've known since the 1970s about the health hazards that the animal use of antibiotics poses for humans. Reducing society's chances of inadvertently creating a superbug is a good reason to purchase organic foods.

There are the more immediate health benefits of buying organic: you'll avoid the chemicals, preservatives, and hormones that conventional farms often use to treat their foods. …

… And then there's the reason many people find most compelling of all: the health of workers in the field. For some consumers, buying organic is a human-rights issue. …

Comments

4 responses to “Organic Food Isn’t More Nutritious, but That Isn’t the Point”

  1. Dana Ames Avatar
    Dana Ames

    The article seems well written and balanced. However, the nutritional equity is old news. The assertion that the difference is only about the way the food is produced seems somewhat disingenuous to me.
    No argument that on the level of elements, nutrition is the same. However, the holism of the organic movement includes a vision of health for all, and avoiding “nasty things like chemicals and additives” and “inadvertently creating a superbug” sound to me like things that are in the best interests of everyone’s health. Keeping soil healthy ensures that we have farmland able to produce food at all in the years to come. Where I come from, workers’ rights are definitely part of the mix, as well as an understanding of the reasons non-organic food prices are artificially low, the health detriments of processed food, and the involvement of corporate entities whose bottom line is the dollar and whose actions related to driving the family farmer out of business – including developing a monopoly for their products by patenting the genetic compositions of ordinary seeds – have left a very bad taste in people’s mouths, including people who are not necessarily anti-business. People who understand that all these things relate to the health of all our citizens are willing to pay the difference in price for organically-produced food as a matter of truth-telling, and they also promote backyard and community organic gardening so that those with less means benefit too. And you know what? All this is reflected in the fact, on which there is agreement across the board, that organic food simply tastes better. 🙂
    You got me to pull out my soap box on this one. I live in an agricultural state and (still rather hippie-fied) county, and these issues are in the forefront of many people’s lives here, even those who do not farm.
    Dana

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “The assertion that the difference is only about the way the food is produced seems somewhat disingenuous to me.”
    Dana, one of the things I liked about the article is that I thought he was making the various points you made.

    Reply
  3. Dana Ames Avatar
    Dana Ames

    Perhaps I misread through the cloud of ire before my eyes 🙂
    Dana

    Reply
  4. Aquaponics Gardener Avatar
    Aquaponics Gardener

    I don’t think that people who use organic foods actually use them because they believe their more nutritious traditionally produced food but simply desire a chemical free produced product. At the end of the day, its all about being concerned with what you put in your body.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading