The debate about organically versus conventionally produced food feels a bit like watching a tennis match. Here is the latest volley from a team of researchers, led by Alan Dangour, at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
Side 1: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (2009): “there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food.”
Side 2: The Organic Center (2008) “New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods”
What is a poor, confused, conscientious consumer to do? I all ready struggle with tough questions at the supermarket like: What should I have for dinner? Or, is it really a good idea to shop for food when I’m so hungry?
There are other reasons besides nutrition and health benefits that a consumer may choose organic foodstuffs. In fact, the 2009 review admits to not addressing some of these concerns such as, the environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural practices. Nor does the study address “contaminant content,” meaning the residues of herbicides, pesticides and fungicides potentially found in organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. For instance, a recent study has shown a link between pesticides and increasing mortality rates of Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's diseases.
So, the question still remains organic or conventionally produced food? We’ll also have to wait for further research to find out if it’s a good idea to shop when you’re hungry.
Image: Marcin Floryan
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment