National Editor Tom KarstThere is pushback to the news coverage of the Stanford University study on the differences, or lack thereof, between organic and conventional food. The Packer's coverage alone has 21 comments, many from organic supporters.
Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute penned a column about the topic here.
Although there is conflicting science on whether or not organic food is truly nutritionally superior, there is no doubt that in terms of many parameters, organic food is demonstrably safer.
I will stick with the diet that concentrates on fresh, local, more flavorful food that’s produced without synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and genetically modified organisms. And I for one think I’m getting a good value for my own health, while at the same time supporting good environmental stewardship and economic justice for family farmers.
Louisa Kasdon also chimes in:
Whatever their motivation, supporting organic agriculture helps people feel empowered by their food choices. That’s the real reason organic food matters. It is part of the most powerful social movement of our day: Food Consciousness. And though I have great respect for the fastidious research by the Stanford team, in no way is the new report a devastating blow to organic food.
Ultimately people don’t reach for the misshapen organic strawberry because it has more vitamin C. They do so in the hope that supporting organic agriculture will help raise the conversation and make the food system healthier for all of us in the long run.
The question "Is organic food better for you?" is also being discussed at the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group.
There is no doubt the committed organic consumer will not be swayed by the Stanford University research. Faith cannot be reduced to facts.
In the minds of some organic advocates, the study may be counted as one more challenge "the establishment" is erecting to slow down the organic trends.