Many years ago, I was hoping that scientific studies would prove that organically grown food would be found to have as much nutrition as food grown with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. It was a question of whether we could treat the earth and the farmers and the animals better without hurting the people who ate the organically grown products. And I hoped that the pesticides, fungicides and other hazardous compounds would be lessened in the food chain, especially at the chain food-market--and the we would stop being the guinea pigs for testing the long term consequences of these compounds.
Imagine my surprise when the headlines to the recent studies did not scream: organic foods found to be at least as nutritious and healthy as non-organic foods. Because that is the real story, that organically growing food without the advantages of the synthetic compounds was not a detriment to the final outcome of individual health. Or the headline could have been neutral--apples and apples appear to be the same.
Regardless, if people had been mistaken to think that organic foods were healthier for the individual, the reports could have taken that into account instead of seeming to be filling their news hook of hoodwinked health nuts.
What I would like to see are the studies that show if almost all agriculture adhered to the organic standards that the results would indicate a healthier environment, less cancer for the farm workers, more sustainable and adaptable agriculture and able to feed at least as many people. (and tastier).
Thanks to some great reporting by Nicholas Kristof on what organic farming is all about. Note that in the video, no one asks if the milk produced is more nutritious.
Milk of Human Kindness Video
Also consider the Slow Food movement with its comprehensive look at food from seed to fork: