It has long puzzled me why things got to be the way they are when I go into the grocery store: organic fruit often has about 3 stickers on it, while “regular” fruit has only one. Why don’t we call organics “regular”, and non-organics what they are… non-organic, or potentially, chemical-laden dietary hazards? The labeling debates have long been hashed out, and are probably not worth repeating here. What is, however, newsworthy, is noting the persistence of myriad ways in which the line of thinking which purports that non-organic food is the “normal” and which marginalize and aim to unseat the value of eating organic foods.
The latest version of this is a study which came out which aims to prove that organic foods have no significant nutritional value compared to “traditional” foods. The latest hullabaloo is that there was a study by Britain’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) which reported no significant nutritional benefits from eating organic foods, based on a literature survey starting in 1950; to counter this, the Organic Center came up with their own, similar study (which threw out certain articles they didn’t feel up to snuff…), and did find organics more nutritious. So much for scientific neutrality… it sure is transparent that there are political agendas at stake in all of this.
Moreover, here’s what’s so backwards, as I see it. When will we start doing studies about the potential harm and chemicals in non-organic foods, instead of arguing about piddly antioxidant content (or lack thereof) of organics?