- 3:16 pm - Tue, Sep 18, 2012
- 3 notes
The Atlantic points out that organic food isn’t actually better for you.
In a widely publicized and discussed analysis of more than 200 studies comparing organic to regular food products, researchers have found that organics don’t have more vitamins or minerals (with the lone exception of phosphorus, which we all get in sufficient amounts anyway). Nor do they have an appreciable effect when it comes to heading off food-borne illness…
But, crucially, it is better for the earth and for farmers:
For all the attention devoted to the ways organic is better for you, we should remember that organic began chiefly as an argument about the environment. From the agency’s perspective, to buy organic is to respect the land your food came from. It means taking pains to ensure that your farms remain bountiful and productive, even decades from now. The case is one part self-interest over the long term, and one part a statement of ethics.
Do most people buy organic because of self-interest, ethics, or misinformation? Does it matter? Is the organic fad just another consumer bandwagon, or indicative of genuine public concern for ecology and sustainability?
In a way, it’s oddly revealing that people have come to assume organic consumers choose their food on the basis of nutrition, which is of course based on maximum personal advantage to the consumer. Why is it so unfathomable that instead of self-benefit, we choose to buy organic in order to support specific economic markets, avoid endorsing certain agricultural practices, and vouch for food’s aesthetic value?
Because that’s really it. For our part, organic just tastes better. (Photo)