Go organic? Or not?

A controversial new metastudy challenges organic orthodoxy

By
September 17, 2012

In case you missed it a couple of weeks ago, a Stanford study recently proclaimed that organic food really isn't any better for you than conventional food.

Predictably, a media brouhaha ensued, with industry wags declaring “I told you so!” and organic advocates complaining that the study was flawed. On the Huffington Post, the Ask Healthy Living department neatly summarized the situation, including a breakdown of the study itself.

In a nutshell? The study — really a metastudy, reviewing other studies — found that organic produce isn’t more nutritious than conventional produce, and it’s not always safer, either, in terms of microbial contamination.

Nothing new there. But, as Twilight Greenaway pointed out on Grist, nutritional content alone isn't the only reason to choose organic. Other reasons, as Marion Nestle mentioned, may be more important:

Organics is about production methods free of certain chemical pesticides, herbicides, irradiation, GMOs, and sewage sludge in plant crops, and antibiotics and hormones in animals. This meta-analysis confirms that organic foods have much lower levels of these things. I’d call that doing exactly what it is supposed to.

Consumer Reports echoed Greenaway and Nestle, adding that long-term outcomes — ranging from human health to animal welfare to environmental health — simply weren’t documented in the study.

Meanwhile, Kim Severson is tracking our national shift away from foods certified organic — a term that many feel has been co-opted by Big Food to make processed food more profitable — and toward emphasizing food that has been "certified naturally grown," a new label dubbed “The Grassroots Alternative to Certified Organic.”

Bickering aside, Severson concluded with a quote from Alice Waters, the high priestess of fresh and pure food, reminding readers what the fight is really all about:

“Taste is what’s going to get us to eat seven portions of fruits and vegetables a day,” she said. “To not consider taste and quality in this whole discussion is to completely miss the point about food.”
Subscribe
Comments
There is 1 comment on this item
Add a comment
1. by Caroline Cummins on Sep 19, 2012 at 8:19 AM PDT

The Cornucopia Institute has also challenged the Stanford study on the grounds that the researchers' funding comes from Big Ag.

Add a comment

Think before you type

Culinate welcomes comments that are on-topic, clean, and courteous. For the benefit of the community we reserve the right to delete comments that contain advertising, personal attacks, profanity, or which are thinly disguised attempts to promote another website.

Please enter your comment

Format: Bare URLs are automatically linked; use this style: [http://www.example.com "place text to be linked here"] for prettier links. You may specify *bold* or _italic_ text. No HTML please.

Please identify yourself

Not a member? Sign up!

Please prove that you’re not a computer


Advertisement
Our Table

The Joy of Cooking app

A new tool for the kitchen

The latest in our collection of cooking apps.

Subscribe
Graze: Bites from the Site
First Person

The secret sharer

A father’s legacy

The Culinate Interview

Mollie Katzen

The vegetarian-cooking pioneer

Reviews

Down South

Barbecue, tamales, cocktails, and more

Local Flavors

A winter romesco sauce

Good on everything

Most Popular Articles

Editor’s Choice