Should we go "Organic?" Is there any health benefit to organic foods to warrant spending the extra bucks? A recent report by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), UK,claimed that "there is no evidence of any significant benefits to human health from consuming organic foods."
This prompted an uprising in the medical community as many cited a correlation (but no cause-to-effect) between the rise in pesticides and chemicals in the environment and the rise in disease rates.
The UK study compared only the nutritional contentof foods. From that standpoint, non-organic foods are as nutritious as their organic counterpart. However, traditionally-grown plant foods are likely to contain higher levels of pesticides and potentially harmful chemicals. Industrially-produced animal foods such as milk, beef and chicken, are also likely to contain higher levels of hormones and antibiotics than if organically produced.
The problem is that the rules for defining "Organic" are not clear. Is the "organic" field located next to a non-organic field and receiving a good dose of pesticides? Does the "organic" transport truck also serve the non-organic crop? There is a gray area, but there is progress in definition of the rules and labeling. (2) Surveys show that people choose to go "organic" for environmental and animal welfare reasons, not for nutrition reasons.
But nutrition matters and here is my take on this. "It is the dose that makes the poison." Where is the greater harm likely to come from? That's where I want to invest my money.
- Milk & yogurt: with 3 cups a day going into our kids (or should…) I'm going organic (non-fat too), for them and for me, avoiding high fat and estrogen levels.
- Chicken: eating chicken 3 times a week, and preferring the taste of free range chicken, I try to go organic whenever possible, but not making a big deal of it.
- Beef: with beef on my plate only once a month, it really doesn't matter. As for animal welfare, I'm more concerned about human welfare and go plant-based.
- Vegetables: I look for the most nutritious, which means vegetables that are in season, picked at the top of ripeness. Great taste comes from ripeness. Produce section, frozen, farmers' market, they're OK.
- Fruit: same as above. Concerned about carbon footprint, I avoid buying imported produce, at the same time avoiding alar and other chemicals.
- Cereal: ½ cup a day of oats contains minimum pesticides, if any. I'm more concerned about the colorants, chemicals and sugar in the kids' cereal…
In perspective, though, consider the entire food budget balance. How much of the budget goes into soda, alcohol, fast food, delivery pizza, cookies, crackers, ice cream, chips? Consider abandoning some of the above to replace by organic vegetables and fruits picked at their maturity peak. Choose nonfat organic milk and free range chicken as often as possible. Enjoy the taste!
(1) Christian Nordqvist, Medical News Today
(2) http://www.consumeraffairs.com/
Should we go "Organic?" Is there any health benefit to organic foods to warrant spending the extra bucks? A recent report by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), UK,claimed that "there is no evidence of any significant benefits to human health from consuming organic foods."
This prompted an uprising in the medical community as many cited a correlation (but no cause-to-effect) between the rise in pesticides and chemicals in the environment and the rise in disease rates.
The UK study compared only the nutritional contentof foods. From that standpoint, non-organic foods are as nutritious as their organic counterpart. However, traditionally-grown plant foods are likely to contain higher levels of pesticides and potentially harmful chemicals. Industrially-produced animal foods such as milk, beef and chicken, are also likely to contain higher levels of hormones and antibiotics than if organically produced.
The problem is that the rules for defining "Organic" are not clear. Is the "organic" field located next to a non-organic field and receiving a good dose of pesticides? Does the "organic" transport truck also serve the non-organic crop? There is a gray area, but there is progress in definition of the rules and labeling. (2) Surveys show that people choose to go "organic" for environmental and animal welfare reasons, not for nutrition reasons.
But nutrition matters and here is my take on this. "It is the dose that makes the poison." Where is the greater harm likely to come from? That's where I want to invest my money.
- Milk & yogurt: with 3 cups a day going into our kids (or should…) I'm going organic (non-fat too), for them and for me, avoiding high fat and estrogen levels.
- Chicken: eating chicken 3 times a week, and preferring the taste of free range chicken, I try to go organic whenever possible, but not making a big deal of it.
- Beef: with beef on my plate only once a month, it really doesn't matter. As for animal welfare, I'm more concerned about human welfare and go plant-based.
- Vegetables: I look for the most nutritious, which means vegetables that are in season, picked at the top of ripeness. Great taste comes from ripeness. Produce section, frozen, farmers' market, they're OK.
- Fruit: same as above. Concerned about carbon footprint, I avoid buying imported produce, at the same time avoiding alar and other chemicals.
- Cereal: ½ cup a day of oats contains minimum pesticides, if any. I'm more concerned about the colorants, chemicals and sugar in the kids' cereal…
In perspective, though, consider the entire food budget balance. How much of the budget goes into soda, alcohol, fast food, delivery pizza, cookies, crackers, ice cream, chips? Consider abandoning some of the above to replace by organic vegetables and fruits picked at their maturity peak. Choose nonfat organic milk and free range chicken as often as possible. Enjoy the taste!
(1) Christian Nordqvist, Medical News Today
(2) http://www.consumeraffairs.com/