Either way is healthy

09/07/2012 9:48:11 AM
The Packer Editorial Board

A recent university study found that organic food is no healthier or safer than conventionally grown food.

So what?

While the study made big news in consumer media in early September, produce companies have been careful not to overpromise on organic fresh fruits and vegetables.

They’re grown without synthetic pesticides and are certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and that’s made organic produce one of the strongest growing segments in the produce department.

Give consumers credit.

Organic food has been around for years, and the Organic Trade Association points out that 78% of families at least occasionally buy organic food.

In the 2012 edition of The Packer’s annual Fresh Trends consumer survey, we found that 27% of consumers say they typically buy organic fruits and vegetables, and 12% say they always buy organic.

Organic food is not a trend that will be abandoned by a few bad media reports. It’s a mainstream way to grow and buy food.

Consumers buy organic food for any number of reasons, and if one of them was for perceived health benefits, the study is unlikely to dissuade them from an organic purchase.

In a country fighting obesity, Americans should eat more fresh fruits and vegetables, whether they’re grown conventionally or organically.

Produce marketers should encourage consumers to buy and eat them grown both or either way.

The study concluded that as well.

Did The Packer get it right? Leave a comment and tell us your opinion.

Comments (3) Leave a comment 

That Stanford study that everyone's quoting was totally fraudulent.
http://www.naturalnews.com/037108_Stanford_Ingram_Olkin_Big_Tobacco.html

The study's co-author, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an "anti-science"
propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to
have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered
foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.

The following document shows financial ties between Philip Morris and Ingram
Olkin
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/22205.html

Olkin worked with Stanford University to develop a "multivariate" statistical
algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics.

This research was a key component in Big Tobacco's use of anti-science to attack
whistleblowers and attempt to claim cigarettes are perfectly safe.

O.K. The Packer. You need the ad revenue from both sides. So you are treading here carefully. But I think you fellows know enough in your heart of hearts that it is the organic side that is the health fraud. Conventional agriculture is not promoting itself as anything particularly healthy other than that eating fruits and vegetables is healthy. No brainer there.

If some theoretical totalitarian government of the future were able to decree that organic farming was the only permissiable way to grow crops, as some cranks now probably wish, there would be an ag and environmental disaster of enormous proportion.

It's funny how there have been a number of "reputable" studies on both sides of this
issue. I've always heard to follow the money, and there is A LOT more money for big
corporations to lose if organic gets too popular. Then you hear about fixing statistics
like the tobacco industry did just to create doubt. That's all they need is a little doubt
and they've bought themselves a few more years of multi billion dollar sales. Who
cares if its a big part of the global warming problem, doesn't solve world hunger, and
is part of why Americans are so sick and reproduction is way down. Follow the money.