My grandmother often said that any fool can grow a tomato. They naturally produce a fair number of alkaloids so pesticides are often not necessary, certainly not in a small garden. Even alarmist sources reveal that conventionally grown tomatoes do not have the highest concentration of pesticides. So I get a laugh when I see four or five tomatoes labeled "organic" being sold for $4 at my Bois Franc neighbors' market. For each of the last 40 days or so I've been eating garden tomatoes that germinated from seeds from my compost pile. Total cost: about $2 for the couple of bags of earth I added.
It would be nice to have my tomatoes analyzed. Would pesticides show up from the water I use to irrigate them? Do they contain detectable levels of arsenic from the soil or from the treated wood used in my neighbors decks? Was the topsoil I added contaminated? Are they more nutritious then store-bought fruit? In general how do organic fruits and meats compare to conventionally grown ones?
Recently related questions have been answered by a meta study. Here's a summary.
Question 1: A 2012 Stanford School of Medicine meta study involving a group of researchers without an obvious conflict of interest concluded that organic food and conventionally grown food are equally nutritious. Is this anything new?
Answer 1: Nope. A meta study published three years ago in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (July 29, 2009) and discussed in a previous Science 2.0 article arrived at the same conclusion
Question 2: Which type of food is free of organic pesticide residue? Which has levels below permissible levels?
Answer 2: According to the same Stanford group which examined 223 studies involving either pesticides or nutrients, 62% of conventionally grown food and 93% of organically grown fruits and vegetables had no pesticide residues. In almost all cases the levels of pesticides were below permissible levels.
Question 3: Which meats, organic or conventional, are less likely to be contaminated by harmful E. coli bacteria?
Answer: Neither. The common culprits, regardless of farming methods, were chicken and pork.
Question 4: For organic meat, is there less a possibility that it will be contaminated by at least 3 bacteria types that are resistant to antibiotics?
Answer 4: Yes, 33% less likely, but there are probably no clinical consequences to this, according to the authors.
Question 5: Did the authors find any long term studies of the health benefits of eating organic versus conventionally grown food?
Answer 5: Nope! In the last fourteen years, organic food in the United States has grown from a $3.7 billion to a $24.4 billion business. But the growth has been based on a combination of misinformation (with regard to nutritional content) and a mixture of fear and possibly overcautionary principles (organic food, overall, does have less pesticide residue, but we don't know if the small amounts are actually harmful.)
It would be nice to have my tomatoes analyzed. Would pesticides show up from the water I use to irrigate them? Do they contain detectable levels of arsenic from the soil or from the treated wood used in my neighbors decks? Was the topsoil I added contaminated? Are they more nutritious then store-bought fruit? In general how do organic fruits and meats compare to conventionally grown ones?
Recently related questions have been answered by a meta study. Here's a summary.
Question 1: A 2012 Stanford School of Medicine meta study involving a group of researchers without an obvious conflict of interest concluded that organic food and conventionally grown food are equally nutritious. Is this anything new?
Answer 1: Nope. A meta study published three years ago in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (July 29, 2009) and discussed in a previous Science 2.0 article arrived at the same conclusion
Question 2: Which type of food is free of organic pesticide residue? Which has levels below permissible levels?
Answer 2: According to the same Stanford group which examined 223 studies involving either pesticides or nutrients, 62% of conventionally grown food and 93% of organically grown fruits and vegetables had no pesticide residues. In almost all cases the levels of pesticides were below permissible levels.
Question 3: Which meats, organic or conventional, are less likely to be contaminated by harmful E. coli bacteria?
Answer: Neither. The common culprits, regardless of farming methods, were chicken and pork.
Question 4: For organic meat, is there less a possibility that it will be contaminated by at least 3 bacteria types that are resistant to antibiotics?
Answer 4: Yes, 33% less likely, but there are probably no clinical consequences to this, according to the authors.
Question 5: Did the authors find any long term studies of the health benefits of eating organic versus conventionally grown food?
Answer 5: Nope! In the last fourteen years, organic food in the United States has grown from a $3.7 billion to a $24.4 billion business. But the growth has been based on a combination of misinformation (with regard to nutritional content) and a mixture of fear and possibly overcautionary principles (organic food, overall, does have less pesticide residue, but we don't know if the small amounts are actually harmful.)
