The question of whether to go green and shift your diet to a more organic is a challenging one these days. These days all we hear are reports of climate change, the need to buy carbon offsets when you go on long airplane ride and the importance of eating organic. I admit to being on the organic and local shopping and eating bandwagon, although I do it more because the food tastes so much better (and is often less expensive) than the stuff I can get at my local chain grocery store. Over at Green Daily today, Bruce Watson ruminates on the issue of organic food and whether it's as green and planet-friendly as we'd like to think. Go on over and see what he has to say and let us know what you think.

Broke Stars: 11 Celebrities Who Went Bankrupt
Adele Five-Year Break? Singer Plans to Focus on Relationship, Write 'Happy Record'
Social Security Is Failing Even Faster Than We Thought
Man Says Starbucks Discriminated Against Him Because He Has Half An Arm
Chris Brown, Grammys 2012: Embattled Singer Slams Critics
Ford's clever Sports Illustrated Swimsuit ad features phantom model
Trace Adkins Reunites With College Crush, 30 Years Later
Van Gogh's Starry Night modded into beautiful interactive light and sound show (video)
'Hooker Teacher' Forced To Resign, Now Can't Find Work
3 Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die
Lauren Scruggs Goes On Ski Vacation












7-09-2008 @5:12PM mick said... The article makes valid points about the shelf life of organics and possibly the transportation footprint of some, expecially from larger or CA growers. However, the article states some erroneous facts and totally skips the premise, ongoing studies prove with each new foodstuff comparison, that organics are nutritionally better. The article supports local over organics but does not make the distinction between these local, small growers who may use organic practices but cannot otherwise afford certification.
I'll choose local over CA organic because I can talk to the locals and find out what happens with my food. When I can't find out first hand how my food is treated, I will choose the "certified" variety as somewhat of a stop-gap for strangeness. I only choose non-organic when there is no other choice and it is usually a basic food componant.
One premise is that people are tired of the choices being so expensive and whether or not it is worth it in the long run. Given how pro-monsanto-esk the USDA and FDA has become, the days I can't afford the safest food I know...I fast. There's no telling what black box warning will show up 10 years from now on something touted "safe in ppm" today. It's the government's MO.
The more you read, the scarier food becomes.
Reply
7-09-2008 @8:35PM Michael Schmitt said... The article also talks about the small organic farm versus the large commercial organic farm. The studies that show that organic foods are higher in nutrition almost always show that they are from smaller farms and not from the commercial organic sized farms.
Take milk for example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490255/Organic-food-really-IS-better-claims-study.html You'd think that organic milk is "better" than conventional milk. That's only half true. Milk from cows on pastured land (organic or conventional) have higher nutrient contents that feed lot cattle milk (organic or conventional. There isn't a comparison of pastured organic versus pastured conventional milk. Studies almost never show true "apples to apples" comparisons of nutrition.
Pun was only slightly intended.
Reply
7-10-2008 @6:13AM Berkana said... I grow my own lemons and tomatos by organic methods; I'll say this for sure: commercial farming simplifies soil chemistry down to very basic macro-nutrients provided by fertilizer rather than making the soil fertile as organic methods do, and when soil chemistry is simplified, the resulting food chemistry is simplified, and the result is fewer dimensions of flavor.
Reply