The Absence of Negatives

A reporter recently called to ask me about the recent Stanford study which claimed that organic foods are not more nutritious than conventional foods.  I told him that while there have been studies indicating that organic foods are more nutritious than conventional foods, I really don’t know for sure which claim is accurate.

I went on to explain however, that while many in the conventional foods industry will undoubtedly be happy to see the results of Stanford’s report, they’re missing the point.

What IS important to those of us who choose organics is the absence of negatives…  the absence of the health risk of chemicals (pesticides, herbicides), the absence of GMOs, the absence of irradiation, the absence of animal cruelty, the absence of water pollution and eco-system disruption, the absence of chemical exposure to farm workers, the absence of antibiotics and hormones, etc.

And what else is great about organic foods?… the presence of a much higher quality product and the support of mostly small farms who aren’t owned by huge agri-businesses.

Once again, those who live in the conventional world simply don’t understand our worldview and why we value organic farming.  We’re progressing- and their views are slowly becoming outdated and stale.

This entry was posted in environment, food, GMOs, MOM's Organic Market, organic foods, water and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Absence of Negatives

  1. Ellen says:

    Thank goodness you have posted this. When I heard the report, I was struck with a sense of oh my goodness, Did someone spend good money on that study. It is simply about the absence of poisons on my food, that is doing who knows what to our bodies. And Supporting those who don’t want to poison the earth or water. What a ridiculous study, and yet folks will walk away with the incorrect mind set.

  2. Ellen says:

    Scott have you seen the latest edition of “Nutrition Action Health Letter” written by the “Center for Science in the Public Interest” – CSPI for short. They have been around for at least 20 years that I know of. The title is “Going Organic” and they point out many specifics that support what you have just said. If you do not subscribe to CSPI – you should try it I think it is like $15 or $19 per year. They are the folks that pointed me in the right direction when I was in my 20s – so very long ago. – Take care

  3. Bonnie says:

    Not to mention that the Stanford study wasn’t a study- it was an analysis of previous studies, and of course there is going to be bias. And at the end of the article, it DOES say that there are other benefits to organic vs. conventional (most of the ones you mentioned). And when you take into consideration that the health of the soil (i.e. higher nutrient content) is greater with organics, then that is of course going to be absorbed by the produce that is growing in the soil.

    I think that most people who took the Stanford study seriously probably read the headline and made their decision off of that, rather than actually researching for themselves.

  4. Sue says:

    Maybe this will help them figure out why organics are important: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Autism-risk-seen-in-mothers-pesticide-exposure-5594331.php
    AUTISM
    Risk found in moms’ pesticide exposure

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s