I wanted to write this one a few weeks ago when this article came out, but alas, life gets in the way...
A few weeks ago articles appeared in mainstream news sources that referred to a Stanford University Study in which organic foods were measured against conventional foods in terms of nutritional value. In the NY Times article, the author starts against organic foods by stating that organic foods are no more nutritious than conventional and that they are not less likely to contain harmful E.coli. Other articles, such as the one that appeared on Yahoo, used the same format; which mounted to what seemed to be an outright attack on organic foods. For people who tend to skim the first few lines of an article and move on, the impression would be that an important study found that organic foods are not worth more money and are therefore not necessary to buy. As the article continued, the author did point out some positive outcomes of the meta-analysis; organic produce had consistently lower pesticide residues than conventional ones and organic chicken and pork had lower levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (such bacteria, it has been argued, is a direct result of antibiotic use in CAFOs).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html
Thankfully, the rebuttals started pouring in. I first received Dr. Mercola's article which drew my attention to The Los Angeles Time's response:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-organics-20120905,0,5514318.story
The LA Times points out that nutritional values are not the main reason that people buy organic products. They also talked about the havoc that conventionally grown produce wreaks on the environment. A big point of the study was that, even though organic produce has lower pesticide levels, conventional produce still falls under allowable levels by the EPA. The LA Times pointed out that the EPA levels are most likely outdated and most pesticides have not been thoroughly tested.
Dr. Mercola's article was even more enlightening. He listed some studies that DID show that organic foods have higher nutritional values. He also outlines the larger argument, and shows why it is in the governments interest to stomp out demand for organic farming practices, especially in light of the recent GMO debate.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/17/organic-vs-conventional-food.aspx
All of this made me think of another argument, one that all of us have probably come across one time or another. The idea that organic foods are an elitist concept and the people who claim the market share on them are a privileged few. Article after article brings up the cost of organic foods over and over again, as if that is the real debate and the other reasons for buying organic are secondary.
My personal reasons for going organic pretty much include all the reasons one would. The primary one being that it is better for the environment. Second, it lessons the toxic load on our bodies and we already live in such a toxic environment; every little bit helps. I believe one of the biggest problems with chemical testing is that we do not test for cross-reactions with other chemicals and we have let so any chemicals loose into the world that humans (and other forms of life) have become the guinea pigs for chemical interactions. Also, organic foods taste MUCH better than conventional and, if bought locally, travel much less distance to get to me. All that being said, I generally put more of an emphasis on local food than certified organic, although both are normally grown using sustainable methods. I do not necessarily believe in (paying for) organic certification, however, if you are buying from a grocery store and not direct from a farmer, it can be a good way to ensure a higher quality product.
It can be very frustrating when one is trying their hardest to take care of themselves and their families and others look down on their efforts as "elitist". I am reminded of one of my favorite Joel Salatin quotes:
"True elitism is some bureaucrat standing up on his hind legs saying consumers are too stupid to find a clean farmer. The real elitists are those who say farmers are dirty and want to hurt their customers. I don't understand why I'm called an elitist for wanting to eat what my grandmother grew up on. Real elitists are the ones who deny me that privilege, and erect a host of barriers to protect global industrialists from peasants with pitchforks...like me."
The sad thing for me is that it is not "my grandmother" anymore, it might be my great-great grandmother...or even further back. But the point is the same, why should we be called elitists for not playing into the system? Does anyone really want to government to decide what foods we can and cannot eat, while making the pockets of companies like Monsanto bigger and bigger? There are plenty of ways to keep the cost of foods down while enjoying a healthy and low-toxicity diet. Because my husband and I almost never go out to eat, we probably spend much less money on food than anyone we know. Mercola mentions a few reasons why organic food can be more expensive and some shopping advice here:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/20/organic-food-is-more-expensive.aspx
I do believe, as the organic food movement grows, the idea of these foods as elitist will wither because local foods are seen as less of a highbrow market (I think, anyway). Also, many people who have had illnesses have turned to traditional foods to get better and have informed their friends and family of the benefits of such a change. I have a lot of hope for the future but have also experienced some of the "elitist" backlash myself.
What are your thoughts on the subject? What is the perception of local or organic food where you live?
No comments:
Post a Comment