What a weird article this is. There have been a few others like it based on the report mentioned, screaming with glee, suggesting that the value of organic farming and food is all hype. But one only needs to get through the lede to see what a load of steaming equine manure this is:
“Organic produce and meat typically isn’t any better for you than conventional varieties when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content, according to a new review of the evidence.”
I’ve never even heard anyone claim organic food was superior in nutrient value to conventionally-grown produce. Perhaps I missed something, but I never understood this to be the point of the organic debate. I’m not even clear by what mechanism one would be nutritionally superior to the other. The question, rather, is whether there’s an advantage to eating food that hasn’t been doused with toxic chemicals, in conditions that promote sustainable agriculture rather than ecological ruin. Or, to put it another way, what this article says in the very next friggin’ paragraph:
“But organic options may live up to their billing of lowering exposure to pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, researchers from Stanford University and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System found.”
Actually, that antibiotic-resistant bacteria thing is a new one on me too, and strikes me as a rather useful advantage, unless you find sickness and death appealing. There seems to be a gotcha impulse to dismiss the organic movement as a fad – the stuff of yuppie affectation and earthy-crunchy preachyness, which of course obscures a more serious debate we should be having about where our food comes from and how it affects our health and environment. You know, serious questions like whether it makes sense for the government to issue massive subsidies for the production of corn, making it ridiculously cheap to produce a never-ending supply of sugary drinks and salty snacks so that corporate conglomerates can grow wealthy off the impoverished choices and declining well-being of the populace, all while passing the costs of swelling waistlines and healthcare costs onto society at large. Not much nutritional value in any of that by the way.
There is indeed serious debate to be had about the value of organic systems and locally-grown food – with systems and networks as complex as those in question, it’s difficult to determine whether assumptions some of us who gravitate toward organic and local make are borne out by the evidence – see the question of “ecologies of scale” for instance when it comes to Food Miles. But this kind of nonsense journalism serves nobody. Here’s hoping a more considered discussion will grow up in its place, whether organically or not.
