Organic food advocates weigh in on the recent organics-aren’t-more-nutritious report
You may have read about the recently released study by Stanford University that found “no significant differences between organic and conventional products, in terms of their vitamin content.” The study also found that organic foods were as likely to contain disease-causing bacteria as non-organic foods.
On her Food Politics blog, nutritionist Marion Nestle gives a big sigh. She makes the point that better nutrition isn’t the main reason for organics. “Organics is about production methods free of certain chemical pesticides, herbicides, irradiation, GMOs, and sewage sludge in plant crops, and antibiotics and hormones in animals.”
On the Eat Drink Better blog, Mark A. Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute finds problems with the Stanford study including previous studies that were discounted, one by the USDA.
Michael Pollan, author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” was interviewed by KQED News. He’s not sure the study is “a big deal.” He encourages people to educate themselves and make up their own minds about what’s important when it comes to organics. (I agree!)
My fellow food blogger here on MNN, Kimi, thinks you should still buy organic despite the Stanford study. Her big concern is the pesticides.
MNN’s lifestyle blogger Starre, also has an opinion about the study and why organics are important. In addition to the pesticide argument, she takes the health of the workers who grow and pick the produce into consideration. Their exposure to all the pesticides can cause serious health problems.
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.