Organic produce 'not as good for your health': Vegetables grown with pesticides contain MORE vitamins
The organic 'back to nature' approach to gardening - doing away with artificial chemicals - will not deliver healthier or more tasty produce, it is claimed. A controversial new study from Which? Gardening suggests produce grown using modern, artificial, methods may well be better for you. The claims follow a two year study growing potatoes, broccoli and tomatoes and will alarm producers and consumers who put their faith in natural food.
Truthfully, I am happy that "organic" is being exposed for the greenie mysticism that it is, but I don't put a lot of truck in the idea that non-organic is any more healthy. As Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com says....
"This claim is unlikely to be true — an orange is an orange, no matter how it’s grown. This report does underscore, however, that organic produce is not more nutritious than conventional produce."I will say this. If "organic" was truly third world organic, there might be stroke of truth in it, because of the lack of nutrients and the competition for nutrients with weeds and the plants battle with pests. Third world production isn't as good as we have in these "terrible pesticide using countries" that grow food in such abundance because of our advanced chemical industries. We went from over 40% of the population being involved in agriculture before WWII to about 2% today and we still far out produce what we did in 1940 because of good chemistry.
Many years ago a friend of mine went on a tour to a country emerging from communism. The bus stopped at an apple orchard because the driver raved about the apples there. My friend said they had spots, were malformed, small and didn’t taste all that great…of course variety plays a big part in taste, so that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. The driver could see their disappointment and said, "we don't spray as much as you do in the United States", which I hope is something they have corrected. Does that make them less nutritional? It is after all a chemical issue. We do know and remember that nutrients are chemicals.....right!
Let's get this right once and for all. Farmers are the most frugal people in the world; meaning that they just don't waste. There is a difference between being cheap and being frugal. There is no way you could have ever gotten them to buy insecticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilizers if they weren't necessary and the results weren't far better....and I mean far better, otherwise there would be no way the costs could be justified.
It seems to me that better produce is nutritionally better because of the volume. More food simply means better nutrition. However, in order to be consistant....I don't put too much truck in this story except to laugh and shake my head at the mysticism of the greenies and their demands that this can't be true.
Get over it and buy frugally, stretch your dollars and buy non-organic. Let's face it; eating organic isn't going to keep us alive any longer or keep us any healthier than not eating organic. That is the study I would love to see. A study that follows the lives of those like me who eats what he likes and those who are ”organic only” eaters….and vegans at that.
In fact we could break them all down into vegans, ovo-vegetarians, lacto-vegetarians, ovo/lacto-vegetarians, fruitarians and “vegetarians” who eat fish or chicken and omnivores. Then follow their lives and see who gets what and who lives the healthiest and longest lives. And let’s suppose that the VOOLVF’s live a just little bit longer…would it really be worth it?However, it you wish to be a "true believer"....that's ok with me. RK