Conventional vs. Organic

I just stumbled across an article discussing the nutrients of “organic” foods vs. “conventional” foods that claims that “organic” foods are 40% more nutritionally sound than their “conventional” counterparts.

It struck me as odd, really, because this sounds like a sweeping generality that might be using a fear tactic to keep people from buying conventionally grown foods yet still purchase organic “products.”

What concerns me is setting up the public for a marketable “out” from eating fresh fruits and vegetables. Now marketing companies and corporate sales teams can come up with all kinds of things to tell you why you should eat their product as opposed to a piece of fruit you could pick off your neighbor’s tree.

Remember this: If you have to choose between, say, a conventional apple and a bag of “organic” apple chips, choose the apple. Just wash it real well before you bite into it.

Not everything I eat is organic. Much of it is, yes, but the stuff I pick up from Farmer’s Market might not have “organic” labeling and I don’t care. I know that our farmers are accountable and I talk with them face-to-face every Saturday. It’s a lot more difficult to hide toxic farming when you have to look your patrons in the eye.

So remember, the labels can be misleading. Organic, Kosher, Halal, 0g trans-fat, low-fat and many other labeling methods are placed on products to convince you to purchase them. It doesn’t necessarily make it true just because a marketing firm says so … or doesn’t.

Leave a Reply