I’ve found the organic movement, especially lately, to be profoundly contemptible. Yes, human beings should eat better, we need to balance the needs of the Earth with our food supply, and we shouldn’t hose our plants with pesticides and other crud if they’re toxic and dangerous. There are some very, very serious problems when it comes to what we eat that need to be addressed.
But the organic movement is, by and large, about being a self-righteous douche to poor people than anything else. Oh, you’re fat? Must be because you can’t eat organic!
The environmental angle is aggravating too. “I save the Earth by buying organic local apples!” Yeah, that totally makes up for the fact you drive any distance greater than 100 feet. No, your Prius does not make up for that.
So, thank you, Stanford University and the University of Oxford, for putting paid to this crap.
Stanford’s research found that there’s no difference in nutrients between organics and other foods. They did find a few differences, such as, unsurprisingly, lower amounts of pesticides, but those in normal food were found to be well within established limits. There were a few high points: Organic meat had less antibiotic resistant bacteria, and organic milk has more omega-3 fatty acids.
They did offer a caveat: None of the research found lasted more than two years, so we don’t know the long-term effects. On the other hand, there is the complex and dangerous technique of washing your food before you eat it, which has also not been scientifically tested.
Meanwhile, Oxford has determined that organic food is more polluting per unit produced.