According to a survey by the Harvard School of Public Health, half of the country's adults say they buy organic food often or sometimes. Since organics usually cost more, those of us paying the price are doing so for a variety of reasons.
Many of us are concerned about genetic engineering and the effects of pesticides, especially on young children. We worry about antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the environmental impact of large-scale conventional farming.
And lots of us are convinced too, that, as a general rule, organically grown food just tastes better.
All of that thinking, says New York Times writer Roger Cohen, is pure delusion. Organic is a "fable," says Cohen, an elitist ideology shot through with hype. It's the romantic back-to-nature obsession of an affluent, narcissistic, upper middle class.
This assault on organic, and the inference that those of us who buy it are just being suckered, gained traction this month with the release of a new Stanford University paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The researchers analyzed 237 studies released in the past several years to determine if the data indicated that organic fruits, vegetables and meats were more nutritious than their conventionally grown counterparts.
The Stanford team concluded that the published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are safer or significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.
Headlines around the world trumpeted the news that organic foods make no difference to our health. Food writers and the blogosphere erupted with shock, suspicion, and genuine anger. Natural Newscolumnist Mike Adams even nominated Cohen for "Idiot of the Year."
Some of the pushback on the Stanford study, however, was a little more tempered. Critics have accused Stanford of being much too cozy with industry.
(The university receives large donations from Cargill, who has a very big dog in the fight over organics.)
Others have questioned the study's design and the selection of these particular studies. Kirsten Brandt, a scientist at the Human Nutrition Research Center at the UK's Newcastle University, published a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing organic and non-organic only last year.
Her own study found organic fruits and vegetables, to have on "average 12% higher nutrient levels." Brandt has also discovered a spelling error that sways one of Stanford's results.
Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at The Organic Center in Oregon has challenged the study, too, questioning the study's sampling, methodology, and failure to define what "significantly more nutritious" even means.You can read his critique here.
Since the stated aim of this website is to separate the science from the spin, let's look at a few specific findings that have been glossed over in the rush to wave the Stanford study as the white flag of surrender for organic foods.
Here's some of what the researchers actually did find:
- 38 percent of conventional produce tested in the studies contained detectable pesticide residues, compared with only 7 percent for the organic produce.
- Organic meat contained considerably lower levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria than conventionally raised animals did.
- The organic produce also contained more compounds known as phenols, believed to help prevent cancer, than conventional produce.
- Organic milk contained more omega-3 fatty acids, which are considered beneficial for the heart.
The study actually admits that ¨Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."Now I don't know about you, but I find that the science here validates a few of the reasons that I buy organic and makes me feel considerably less delusional about its health advantages.
Other reasons to buy organic--the environmental ravages and the human costs of industrial farming are not even considered by the study. The dangers of pesticides to farmers and workers especially is often minimized, even by those who promote organic.
Francis Moore Lappe, author of Diet for a Small Planet, reminds us of this important point in an article for Huffington Post.
What also disturbs me is that neither in their journal article nor in media interviews do the Stanford authors suggest that concern about "safer and healthier" might extend beyond consumers to the people who grow our food.
They have health concerns, too!" While the Stanford study may have delivered short-term comfort to those who want to ignore all of these health concerns, it hasn't changed my mind. Don't let it change yours!
Dr. Baldasare lives in Orlando, FL with his beautiful wife and three children. Over the last fifteen years he has helped over 12,000 people get healthy by educating and motivating them to make better choices. He is a frequent guest speaker at the University of Central Florida. He is an author and an educator who enjoys teaching nutrition and wellness.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Brent_Baldasare
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/7301724
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire