I used to write for an environmental magazine in grad school. After taking an organic and GMO class for an entire semester at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana, I had to completely re-write an organic article I had been working on. I changed the theme of the article to eating local instead. I couldn’t bring myself to write a pro-organic article after reading all the scientific research articles that didn’t prove otherwise. I remember being really shocked and upset about the research we were reviewing in class. At one point, I even asked the professor “if this is true why don’t more people know about the research?” His response was that those that have the knowledge don’t always share it. He also brought up another good point, which is that individuals are so stuck on the idea that they are eating “healthier” most people don’t want to hear the truth.
In 2009, there was a systematic review published by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition titled, “Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review.” This review analyzed 55 qualified studies and assessed the nutrient differences between organically and conventionally grown foodstuffs. This review also concluded that, “there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs.” More recently, writer Henry I. Miller wrote an article called, “Is Organic Agriculture ‘Affluent Narcissism?‘” This article has continuously been spread throughout social media and is well worth the read!
Isn’t it crazy that the word organic has always just been a buzzword not backed by any scientific literature? This industry is making billions of dollars on just an idea. Below is a section of his article. To read more (please read more) click on the article title above!
Some of the devotion from consumers attains almost cult-like status, which is why a recent article by Stanford University researchers that was dismissive of health or nutritional benefits of organic foods created such a furor. The study, by researchers in the university’s Center for Health Policy and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was a meta-analysis in which results from the scientific literature were combined but no new, original laboratory work was conducted. Data from 237 studies were aggregated and analyzed to determine whether organic foods are safer or healthier than non-organic foods. They concluded that fruits and vegetables that met the criteria for “organic” were on average no more nutritious than their far cheaper conventional counterparts, nor were those foods less likely to be contaminated by pathogenic bacteria like E. coli or Salmonella.
The investigators themselves were surprised by the result. “When we began this project, we thought that there would likely be some findings that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food,” according to physician Dr. Dena Bravata.Many devotees of organic foods purchase them in order to avoid exposure to harmful levels of pesticides. But that’s a poor rationale: Although non-organic fruits and vegetables do have more pesticide residue, more than 99 percent of the time the levels are below the permissible, very conservative safety limits set by regulators – limits that are established by the Environmental Protection Agency and enforced by the Food and Drug Administration.
Ironically, the designation “organic” is itself a synthetic construct of bureaucrats that makes little sense. It prohibits the use of synthetic chemical pesticides – although there is a lengthy list of exceptions listed in the Organic Foods Production Act – but permits most “natural” ones (and also allows the application of pathogen-laden animal excreta as fertilizer).