British Government Study Says: Organic is not Healthier

Really, folks?  Were we questioning the possibility that organically grown foods were more nutritious than traditional grown?  I think not.  We (being fully informed consumers) know that food is food is food.  Raw food is healthiest (as in lots and lots of produce in its natural state).  That’s a no brainer.  We also know that adding a dose of pesticide and herbicide to our produce is a BAD idea.  Sure, it doesn’t alter basic nutrition (same vitamins and minerals, fats and proteins), but it does introduce carcinogens into our bodies (not to mention a whole host of other unpleasantness).

According to CNN’s Jack Cafferty, “Researchers looked at 50,000 studies conducted over 50 years — and found no significant differences in the foods. They focused on a wide range of crops and livestock raised and marketed under organic standards.”

• » See also: “You Talk About ‘Industrial Farming’ Like It’s A Bad Thing!”
• » Get Eat. Drink. Better. by RSS or sign up by email.

Needless to say, Jack has received numerous responses such as this one from Gary Simpson, “The study misses the point of organic food entirely. A similar study a few years back found that organic food tastes the same as conventional food. But it is not about taste or nutrition; it is about chemicals being introduced to our food and our planet. While a conventional strawberry may be just as plump and nutritious as an organic strawberry, it also contains trace amounts of the pesticides and herbicides that were used to grow it. It is that simple. Organic food is healthier for our bodies and planet because it does not require the use of toxic chemicals.”

Gary, I couldn’t have said it better.  I’m not going to put toxic chemicals into my children’s bodies and call myself a good Mama.

Eat Well. Be Well.

Photo Credit: Don’t Spray the Places we Play by Kevin Krejci on Flickr under Creative Commons License.

Tweet This Post