  |
|||
|
|
|
||
|
Posted by Jamie McIntosh Jul 31, 2008 |
Consumers shopping for organically grown fruits and vegetables usually pay more for this premium produce, and in this atmosphere of volatile food prices, we want to know that our dollars are well spent. Similarly, if you’re new to gardening, and you’re considering organic methods, you may seek a compelling reason to put aside that bottle of pesticide when the march of the caterpillars begins.
Two conflicting reports on the nutritional value of organically grown produce fuel the controversy surrounding the benefits of organic foods. On the pro side, the Organic Center at America’s Organic Trade Association argues that organically grown produce is 25% more nutritious than conventionally grown produce. On the con side, Dr. Joseph Rosen of Rutgers University argues that the Organic Trade Association’s study was poorly designed, and there’s no discernable difference in nutritional value between organic and conventional produce.
I would argue that perhaps these nemeses are fighting the wrong battle. When I grow organic tomatoes in my garden, I don’t wonder whether the result will yield a product with 70% of the RDA for vitamin C or 85% of the RDA for vitamin C. Nor do I weigh nutrition into my organic buying decisions.
However, I do think about leaving behind a toxic environmental legacy for my children. I do worry about the bioaccumulation of pesticides that are banned in the United States, but used with abandon in countries from which we import fresh produce.
Good nutrition is vital, but this research takes the focus away from more pressing conventional farming issues, like clean water and occupational farming hazards.