Did you think organic produce was more nutritious for you?
Me neither. I’ve never actually heard anyone say they thought it was. I’ve never actually heard anyone say the moon landing was faked, either, come to think of it, but I know they’re out there.
At any rate, Stanford University recently released a study showing organic produce probably wasn’t any more nutritious than the regular old produce.
“Probably”? Why release a study that comes to no definite conclusion? “Our study probably wasted money.”
Ahem. *stepping off soapbox and getting back to my point now.*
That’s not why people buy organic.
Those of us who dole out our hard-earned pennies (which in this case means dollars) for organic food do so because it’s pesticide-free and chemical-free, often free-range. Personally, I think free-range carrots are quite delicious, but that’s just my opinion.
No pesticide or chemical residue on food automatically makes it healthier. Not more nutritious … healthier. A tomato coated with pesticides has pretty much the same number and variety of vitamins as an organic tomato.
The question is, do you want your tomato coated with pesticides? The answer to that determines whether you buy organic or not.
But if the question is, “Hey, is my food nutritious?” then you’re out of luck.
Until the USDA, the EPA, Stanford University, the Bureau of Engraving, OSHA, Amtrak, Whole Foods, Little Sunshine Daycare, the National Spelling Bee, the NFL and/or that brainiac kid down the street actually does a solid, unbiased study of processed foods, we’ll never know if our food is actually nutritious.
But I’m not going to get myself in a lather about organics. I’m going to keep buying organic when it matters most, and try to eat mostly fresh, unprocessed foods until I hear from that brainiac kid.
Now, about that moon landing ….