Stanford study can’t slow organic growth

09/14/2012 9:49:18 AM
Greg Johnson

Greg Johnson, Editor The biggest surprise with the news that organic food was no healthier or safer than conventional was how many people were surprised.

The produce industry knew this to be the case, but consumer media and many consumers seemed to be shocked earlier this month by this revelation by Stanford University researchers who compared the nutrition of organic and non-organic food.

In the end, did people really believe eating an organic apple would be significantly healthier than a conventional apple?

It just didn’t pass the logic test.

That’s not to say there aren’t a number of advantages organic food has over conventional, if you value those advantages.

Some people want to make organic food and this recent study into an political issue.

You can do that with anything, can’t you?

In reading through the comments sections of consumer news sites who reported on the Stanford study, I continue to be entertained and bemused by the anger and cluelessness of commenters.

Some suggested the study was underwritten by Monsanto. Some suggested conventional produce’s pesticides will give us all cancer. Some say the media is intentionally misleading consumers to stop buying organic food.

Even on The Packer’s online story about the study, nearly 30 people commented, and they ranged from informed to inquisitive to outraged.

While organic fresh produce accounts for 3% to 5% of fresh fruits and vegetables sold at retail, depending on the data source, it’s an interesting and dynamic market that is tough to pigeonhole into an ideology.

I am constantly amazed by the wide gap between what the idealist wants to see in the organic produce market and the reality of the market, which is that organic has been embraced by many large produce companies.

These companies sell conventional and organic items to cater to as many consumers as they can.

Because they have this variety, they rarely resort to the negative marketing we see from some organic groups.

For instance, the Organic Trade Association’s consumer website, organicitsworthit.org, is devoted as much to denigrating conventional produce as it is promoting organic.

It has sections on the dangers of pesticides, synthetic hormones, genetically modified organisms and antibiotics.

Organic produce has too much appeal to resort to scaring consumers about conventional fruits and vegetables.

Another challenge organic produce must overcome is the price difference.

The Packer’s consumer survey Fresh Trends 2012 found that 27% of consumers said they typically buy organic fruits and vegetables, and 12% said they always buy organic fresh produce.

Comments (4) Leave a comment 

I wonder if organic produce consumers are aware that irrespective of the dubious health
benefits, organic farming reduces crop yields at a time when world hunger is peaking.
Organic farming requires much more energy input - with a bigger carbon footprint - than
conventional farming, and will continue to do so until organic production pulls even in
production with conventional methods.

http://www.tfrec.wsu.edu/pdfs/P2566.pdf This link looks at both sides on the food story to close the gap of misunderstanding.

A leaf is part of where a plant gets it's supply of sunlight to make photosynthesis and transforms this into food for the plant. The root is where it gets it's water, minerals and
other nutrients.

If there is a worm eating away at a leaf it will diminish the plant's yield to produce, as it
would be as if I had lung cancer and can't take in all the possible oxygen.

There are two ways of treating this leaf eating worm, one is by non-organic means, which
is through chemicals that are non-organic and the other is by bringing in a 'beneficial'
insect that will eat away this plant eating critter. Or maybe a fungi that will infect the evil
doers but not the plant it self.

One leaves chemical residues, the other leaves maybe a the remains of a dead animal
which eventually will turn into food plant anyway.

Organic growers use cinnamon oil, and garlic extract in their mixes to fend off enemies
when a conventional farmer would use residue leaving chemicals.

The fact alone that I as a consumer know that I am ingesting less chemicals is enough for
me to choose Organic vs conventional. If my organic meals are less nutritious I don't think
that I will fall into a comma by eating one organic apple due to lack of nutrients.

I like to think that the best possible food is to be enjoyed by my inner world which thrives
to make my mind, muscles, and decision making skills work better, if I feel better I will be
happier, thus I can spread that happiness regardless if it is based on hard Stanford data or
simple cinnamon & garlic logic.

One thing in nutrition values and another thing is the amount of pesticides and chemicals that conventional crops contain and organic do not. People consume a colossal amount of gallons of chemicals per year hence all the new strings of cancer.