A study recently was released in Britain, regarding the nutrient levels in organic food versus the levels in traditionally grown. After studying 50 years of research, they have come to the conclusion that there is virtually no superiority in the nutrients levels in organic foods.
My reply: Who cares?
This quote sums up to me, the complete uselessness of this study :
“There may be a difference in pesticide residues but they didn’t test for that in this paper, and there may be environmental differences but they didn’t test for that,” Emeritus Professor Truswell said.
Am I the only one who buys organic food with the main, number-one, ultimate goal, only-reason-I-spend-that-kinda-money-reason is that the pesticide levels should be non-existent? And that hopefully the food has been farmed in a more responsible manner?
I never thought nor cared about nutrient levels. Have I been lax in this department?
This is a very misleading study, and you would be shocked at the number of news articles floating around the web proclaiming “Study finds organic isn’t better” and “Organic isn’t better, just more expensive!” . I find it actually irresponsible reporting and sensationalism to not look further into what the study actually was about. So be wary reading those articles. I feel sorry for all the organic farmers and community members who might be hurt by this.
Organic still is better. Period.
So this study won’t be changing my shopping habits in the least. If anything, it has reaffirmed why I want to shop organic, I know that the nutrient levels are par with traditional farming but without the pesticides.