Last week’s reports that organic produce may not be more nutritious than conventional reminds us why oversimplified science may not be healthier for you.
The study (which was really a study of studies), didn’t find strong evidence that organic produce contained more of the good vitamins and stuff when compared to “conventionally grown”. The problem is that many news outlets didn’t look beyond that. Especially you, Gawker … “sham” is a strong word, eh?
The reasons people buy organic produce shouldn’t be limited to just getting an extra 5% of their folate. Unfortunately (as pointed out by thenoobyorker, thanks for the comment), that is precisely why many people buy organic, even though the numbers don’t hold up. It’s about reducing exposure to pesticides and other chemicals (whose long-term effects on our bodies we don’t fully undersand), it’s about supporting farming practices that are less harmful to the land and carry a smaller carbon footprint by not using chemical fertilizers, and it’s about reminding people to buy locally and in season, allowing produce to deliver its maximum goodness as evolution intended (not to mention supporting local farms).
So while you may not get a vitamin boost from the expensive carrots, there’s many other reasons that people may choose to buy them. If we aren’t careful with the science, we could miss them.
More at Boing Boing.