Much has already been written about the recent study from Stanford University claiming that organic foods are no more nutritious or healthy than non-organic foods. In short, the researchers concluded that an apple is an apple and all lettuce was created equal -- no matter the food's provenance, how it was chemically treated in the field, or how many miles it traveled to reach your table.
"There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health," said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of the study.
As a farmer and a father, I strongly disagree, and I think the Stanford study sends a terrible message to U.S. consumers. Here's why:
The word "conventional" may sound relatively harmless when used to describe the food we eat, but the reality is our nation's "conventional" factory farms use far more pesticides, herbicides and fungicides than most consumers realize when shopping for produce or preparing a family meal.
Granted, conventionally grown foods have to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's minimum safety threshold when it comes to the amount of traceable pesticides. But the Stanford report fails to appropriately consider the compounding effects that multiple chemicals ingested through different foods may have on our long-term wellbeing, or the effects they have on vulnerable populations like pregnant women and small children.
As a parent of two young boys, I for one don't think the minimum requirements are anywhere near sufficient. Consider the chemical chlorpyrifos, an insect-killing organophosphate that has been approved for use in "conventional" American agriculture for more than four decades.
In 2009, more than one million pounds of this pesticide were used in California alone. Yet according to researchers at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, minimal chlorpyrifos exposure, even at very low levels consistent with standard agriculture use, has been proven to cause adverse impacts on brain development in ways that interfere with academic achievement, reading and learning comprehension, and even sexual development. Not to mention the adverse impact that millions of pounds of this chemical, and hundreds of others like it, can have on the soil and watershed that supports delicate ecosystems for hundreds of miles or more. San Francisco Bay? Puget Sound? Gulf of Mexico? These chemicals eventually end up there, many times with devastating effects.
Agricultural chemicals are designed to kill things. They are toxic substances that come with skull-and-crossbones on the containers. Farm workers commonly wear futuristic-looking "hazmat" suits as protection when they spray the fields. In some cases, farmers, workers and even pets are not allowed to enter the fields for hours after treatment.
Farmers and food producers in this country have an opportunity, and an obligation, to provide consumers incentives for making the healthiest choices possible. The debate should not just be about whether a strawberry produced at a factory farm is more or less nutritious than its organically grown equivalent. We should instead be asking: "How can we grow and provide families with the freshest, cleanest, and most flavorful, strawberries possible?"
It's something we take very seriously at Full Circle, the 400-acre organic farm I founded in Carnation, Wash. My wife and brother were there at the beginning with me, helping to sow the fields from day one. It just didn't make sense to me to expose them, our customers, our land or our community watershed to toxic chemicals in the name of yield and cost. We're about purity. Flavor. Freshness. Stewardship.
Full circle. Farm to table. Cradle to grave. These are not concepts that have much resonance in our nation's industrial food system. But in the words of food advocate and organic pioneer David Lively, "Conventional agriculture is based on a lot of non-sustainable limited-resource practices and principles, and the chickens are coming home to roost."
It doesn't take a bunch of academics to tell us that industrial farming isn't working on many levels. We need to stop debating and measuring how "un-harmful" chemical pesticides are in our food. We need to instead focus on how we can best grow and distribute fresh, pure foods that are as inviting, delicious and healthy as possible, encouraging people to eat more of them and make better overall food choices. We should be giving folks incentives to eat those apples, greens and strawberries - not more reasons to fret over and avoid them.
Follow Andrew Stout on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@FullCircleFarm
Karen Levy: Let's Ask the Right Questions about Organics and Health
1 clean your sink with vinegar and baking soda or a large pot
2 put your meats veggies etc in enough water to cover them (separate)
add about two table spoons of baking soda and equal l amt of vinegar to water and watch it foam
repeat until water is clean and repeat
We purchase the largest sizes of baking soda and vinegar available and stock them up We also clean floors with the solution and use to boost laundry detergent
Laugh if u must Just save your own life I am ok
What no one spoke of here is the presence of the natural toxins; patulin, nivalenols, aflatoxins, ochratoxins zearalenone, ect. Most are metabolites of fungi, and may be more apt to exist in organic foods. Some of them are known carcinogens. The issue is a complex one, simply choosing organic doesn't mean eliminating risks associated with food-borne toxins, natural, or otherwise. It's likely there's a balance between what we do now, and what we should do. One thing certain is the US and world population would be in trouble if we had to depend on organic farming however appealing the foods produced may be. There would be mass starvation. It's likely sans modern agricultural practices, few people, or far fewer people, would be able to afford healthy foods at all- organic or otherwise.
I support organic farming, and local produce -100%. I also know there's more to the story than either this article, or the study have begun to address. We need both, and the risks to health are not all in favor of one, over the other.
You asked, "Who paid for this study?" Guess what? The article tells you.
You said, "People should eat healthier foods. This just encourages people to eat any old junk." Huh. The article addresses that, too. Might be worth checking what they really said, eh?
You said, "There are lots of reasons for choosing organic besides nutritional value." Sounds like you agree with the researchers. Surprised? You wouldn't be if you took the time to read it.
You call people names and chide them for not doing their research. Mirror, anyone?
If conventional is so healthy,why do they have a dirty dozen of Pesticide residue laden fruits-- vegs.
Fresh is the most important.
Organic sourced from CALis pretty tired by the time you get it.
To make it affordable grow something yourself.
Dont get carried awa.y.
Dont plant stuff you dont want to eat.Fifty radish plants?
Its too much work.
Tomatos,beans,cukes,peppers,Hot and sweet are good.Cabbage,
Chard,Peas are good.Try Oregon Giant Peas for some good yielders for a longer season.
Old Organic is pretty used up.
You cant beat corn-tomatos-cukes right from the garden.
i grew some tomatoes that had NO smell, no taste. i was p.ssed. i look forward to those garden tomatoes. i began to investigate what the problem could be...why most supermarket veggies looked so nice but seemingly had less flavor than ever.
food is also my obsession, so i get what you mean when you talk about the monumental differences and the questionable nature of the standford study.
f/f
First, how organic is so-called "organic" food? For every supermarket I've been to, the "organic" label is nearly everywhere. In some places, conventionally grown is harder to find than "organic" because "organic" sells for more money and probably has a higher profit margin. We are no longer just talking about small local farmers. Organic agriculture is big business today. Walmart sells "organic". It's hard to trust what the label means unless you actually know the supplier.
Second, to the average consumer who buys "organic" without thinking, they associate with the label a higher quality product. That means that "organic" fruits and vegetables need to look more shiny and blemish-free than their conventionally grown cousins. How do you get blemish-free produce? By using lots of pesticides of course! I'd be willing to bet that some "organic" producers are now using more pesticides than conventionally grown crops do.
But because they're using "organic pesticides", nothing to worry about...right? Don't be fools people! When you start seeing worms in your apple, then you'll know it's truly organic.
The final issue to consider is that not everyone can afford to buy organic. Economically disadvantaged people are a million times better off eating conventionally grown fruits and vegetables than processed junk food. The positives of having readily available cheap fruits and vegetables far outweigh the negatives.
hard to say.
Some folks cheat cause it sells for a higher price.
Organic doesnt mean honest. all the time.
Buy local and buy organic.. when and if you can.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/13-5
If you visit Stanfords website you can find a detailed list of donors.