I always thought that organic food was supposed to be healthier and more nutritious then conventionally grown food. Looks like I may be wrong.
Interestingly, my first question is how is Whole Foods going to deal with the challenge of this new study conducted by British researchers and published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The researchers examined all the relevant research for the past 50 years eliminating studies the authors believed weren't scientific. It was undertaken because there has not been any independent statement on the nutrition question.
Their conclusion is that there is no difference in 20 of 23 nutrient categories including vitamin C, calcium and potassium. The results were similar when comparing meats. Any nutritional differences found were not regarded as significant.
Critics say that nutrition is only part of the appeal of organic foods. Their argument is that the research did not cover what effect chemical fertilizers and pesticides have on the products. They report on another study completed by the Organic Center that reached a different conclusion and that organic food is more nutritious. They also argue that the British study was not well balanced.
My thinking is that I like the idea of less toxins but I also know that organic food contains less but is not required to be completely free of all fertilizer and pesticides. It often depends upon the farm. I also know that you pay a hefty price for the organic foods. I may end up being a little more choosey about which organic foods I purchase but I'd also like to see another study confirming the Brit's results.
Let me know what you think about buying organic or not and why you do or do not. It will be interesting to get diverse opinions and reasons.
To your well balanced health and life.
Ruthan Brodsky
Comments