…so this is what the latest review is telling consumers. My first reaction sounded something like this: “AUGGGHHHHH!!!!!” My second reaction was: “Well, what about the rest of the story?”
In summary, this conclusion was the result of a British review of studies held over the past 50 years. It states that organic and non-organic foods possess the same nutritional content and therefore there is no superiority in organically grow produce.
Now first of all… I would consider the inclusion of studies that are 30, 40, 50(!) years old fairly irrelevant at this point. But what bothers me more is what this study DOES NOT include.
At no point does it ever address the real reason organic foods are important. I can honestly say that I have NEVER purchased organic foods because I had some expectation of nutritional superiority. I do not buy these foods for what they contain… I buy them for what they DO NOT contain…
What organic foods DO NOT contain are the herbicides, pesticides and other chemicals that are sprayed on the crop… chemicals that are harmful to both us and the environment. It’s that simple. If you have been buying organics for some other reason, then you’ve been buying them for the wrong reason. I’m buying them to prevent my family from consuming chemicals while they are consuming the foods that have a high nutritional value, regardless of the value (especially if they are equal!). And our children are the most vulnerable when it comes to consuming these chemicals. What it also does not mention is that the presence of pesticides can actually block the absorption of nutrients, so then doesn’t this automatically make the amount of nutrients irrelevant if they can’t be properly absorbed?!?
In my opinion, this result is misleading and irresponsible. It’s only half the story.
You can decide for yourself, but my opinion has not been swayed one inch. It’s not about non-organic vs. organic, it’s about chemical vs. non-chemical. Which one would you rather give to your child?