True believers will no doubt find it difficult to accept that they’ve been paying a premium for Food A over Food B even though the only difference between the two is the label:
Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday. [...] A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference. [...] “Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.”
As with any myth that is debunked, many believers will either discount the scientific research that invalidates their superstitions or they’ll reshuffle their supposed motivations.
The greenest of the green will scream that this research was funded by “corporations,” and they’ll point to some opinion piece from Mother Jones or Living Green Magazine as if it’s a reliable counterweight to 50 years of peer-reviewed research. Others will say, “I support organic produce because it involves more recycling, not healthier food.” Well, good for them. We’ll also hear cries that, “organics were never about being healthier, they were always about sustainability and respect for the land.” Fair enough. But what are the rest of us to think when we’ve been beaten over the brain with erroneous claims that “organic is better for you,” only to learn that it’s not true? And what are we to think when the eco-warriors move the goalposts yet again, farther out of the realm of science and deeper into the subjective realms of morality and conscientiousness.
I’m not saying that “green” is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, there are enough good aspects of the trend that ardent supporters don’t need to sell a lie. I’m only saying that if the eco-warriors would learn they can catch more flies with honey than vinegar, then they wouldn’t come out looking like idiots and hypocrites when the facts get in the way of their self-aggrandizing revolution.
This doesn’t mean that organic brands will suffer as people learn they offer no nutritional benefit, or that erudite eaters will suddenly start shopping at Walmart. For many people, “green” is a fashion rather than function. Much of the organic movement is little more than sloganeering that stokes people’s fears and superstitions. It gives them the self assurance that comes from feeling like they belong to some more educated, more conscientious subset within their community. Consumer-oriented producers and manufacturers (i.e. those evil corporations) have been only too happy to exploit these people by “greenwashing” their existing line and selling less product for more money.
For instance, if you have a high efficiency washer and dryer (which I do), you pay a large premium for detergent that has less water in the formula. That’s the only difference. You’d think that less water would equate to a lower price, but you’d be wrong. You’re not buying high efficiency detergent; you’re buying a brand that sets you apart form the unengaged masses who selfishly stress getting a good deal over making a social statement. It’s the same reason Coke and Pepsi charge as much for their bottled water brands, Dasani and Aquafina respectively, as they do for their colas. And it’s the same reason why consumers pay a premium for hybrid cars that’s too large to ever make up for with fuel savings.
But these people aren’t paying a premium for nothing. They’ve bought the right to say don’t just pay lip service to the environment. They pay dollars!
What a bunch of silliness. The prophets of green are as ubiquitous as the health nuts who praised nutritional and moral pseudoscience at the end of the 19th century. Today, just as it was then, it’s the affluent and the authoritarian who flock to the new trend in droves. Last time, it was all about nutrition, enemas and exercise. This time, it’s all about organics, recycling and maintaining a sustainable lifestyle.
|
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
| 
Home Page | 
Back
Well written!
Sir, do you realize that the reuters article research (conducted by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine) in your article does not consider the use of chemical pesticides in its research? Isnt it a tad bit obvious that there are higher chances of contracting illnesses from fruits sprayed with poisonous pesticides and chemicals such as carbides to make them “look” ripe? The hyped up research very conveniently claims there are no “additonal benefits” of organic food. Whatever happened to the lower cost(exactly how much is life worth?) of consuming organic food? Besides recording the levels of beneficial nutritional contents, do we know if the research measured the presence of harmful chemicals in organic/non-organic food contents?
In Wichita, Kansas, organic food has found its way to more homes and restaurants. Organic Food
Abhinav, I don’t know whether the study considers the use of chemical pesticides in its research. It really shouldn’t matter. Plants carry all kinds of natural pesticides, many of which contain small traces of carcinogens. This is the result of evolution and humans have been eating such foods for millennia. Synthetic pesticides merely isolate the effective chemicals in natural pesticides. If you wash your food, the risk from such chemicals, be they natural or man-made, is negligible. (Actually, the science says the risk is non-existent)
This becomes apparent when you examine the scare stats thrown out by agenda pushers. They’ll say something like, “a new study found that a chemical compound in ‘Pesticide X’ may increase the risk of ‘Cancer Y’ by 25%. If you want to keep your kids safe, buy organic!”
Sounds scary, right? And what kind of animal would intentionally put their kids in danger? But if the average person’s chance of developing ‘Cancer Y’ is only 1%, then the risk only goes up to 1.25% because of the added chemicals. As you can see, there’s no real risk to begin with, much less an added risk that comes from using ‘Pesticide X’ to increase crop yield. This isn’t always the case, but the cynic in me assumes this to be true whenever an article or study omits the base risk.
Now, if you wanted to argue about the improper use of synthetic pesticides and their impact on ground and well water, that’s another issue entirely. My critique had to do with erroneous nutritional claims and the exploitative nature of ‘green’ consumer products. Anyway, thanks for stopping by and offering your opinion. It’s rare that I post on controversial topics, and I value alternate viewpoints.
Again, well written!
Chad writes, ‘As with any myth that is debunked, many believers will either discount the scientific research that invalidates their superstitions or they’ll reshuffle their supposed motivations.’
And as predicted, out comes the shuffle.
Someone commented, ‘The hyped up research very conveniently claims there are no “additonal benefits” of organic food. Whatever happened to the lower cost(exactly how much is life worth?) of consuming organic food?
This got me thinking (and you will have to excuse my lack of eloquence in debate).. hyped up research??? What exactly is ‘hyped up’ about the research? How about hyped up prices of ‘organic grocers’? Shouldn’t it be acknowledged that being ‘green’ has actually increased prices in the competitive market. Lower cost you say, perhaps, but companies certainly aren’t passing it on to the customer (which is another discussion for another day). The last time I bought baby food I noticed there was a new line or Gerbers labeled ‘organic’, it was 10% higher in price. If the cost is lower to put out that ‘organic’ product, shouldn’t the price be lower. OR, is it all about making money and expanding these companies margin? This in contrast to helping us live longer (as one implied). HMMMM? Choose as you will, but I think I might have to roll the dice on the regular baby food and trust that the FDA is keeping us safe.
Very much enjoyed this! Well done!
Greg, if the price was equal, I’d go with the organic. it’s like knocking on wood; what does it hurt? But if you’re being asked to pay a decent-sized premium, just go with old-fashioned Gerber’s. We ate it and we turned out fine.
Hi, I applaud your blog for informing people, very interesting article, keep it coming :)