When It Pays to Go Green

Reader Comments
Back to article

Your are only closing the barn door after the horse is already gone. Is it too late for you to delete what I wrote Jul 30, 2009 02:26:03 AM and Jul 30, 2009 01:55:49 AM? Your sloppy journalism is only destroying the credibility of USN&WR. Deleting my comments won’t change that. You only delete what you cannot refute. Why not just apologize and promise to do better in the future.

Barry of CA 4:03PM August 04, 2009

Matt McCarron of CA,
The use of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides, as well as genetic engineering of crops comes from the profit motive. These things have been adopted in agriculture to the extent that they increase productivity. In agriculture, that means producing more food on less land. Therefore, producing a given amount of food without any of these scientific advances, requires the cultivation of far more land, a very expensive finite resource, which we like to see kept in its natural state as much as reasonably possible.
I also have to point out that the BBC article I cited here, disagreeing with you and Kimberly Palmer, cites far more sources than both of you combined. If you would like to come here and make your case, then do so. Don’t just say so, and expect everyone to take your word for it. Show me; don’t tell me.

Barry of CA 3:54PM August 04, 2009

The nutritional benefits of the same food should be the same, unless they are genetically modified, then they could be different.
There are materials along for the the ride on non-organic foods, such as pesticide and fertilzer residue. There is no nutritional value in pesticide and fertilizer residue, but many studies showing detrimental effect to humans as the bioaccumulate in Human tissues. Is there a benefit to humans to ingestion of these residuals? Is the benefit to society for increase food production or less spoilage in the growth and delivery of food to market?
You still need to consider the cost of damage to the environment for the manufacturing of pesticides and fertilizers (CO2 and energy use) and contamination to land and drinking water to have a complete picture of use organic vs. non-organic foods.

Matt McCarron of CA 11:53AM August 04, 2009

Your wrote,
"When it comes to organic food, the high price tag often provides health benefits. Recent research suggests that organic food is also more healthful food. The Organic Center, a nonprofit that collects research about organics, reports that according to recent studies, organic foods are more nutritious than their nonorganic counterparts 61 percent of the time. "Our position is moving in the direction of organic food being more nutritious," says Joe Dickson, the quality standards coordinator for Whole Foods. Although the company used to shy away from making that claim, Dickson says it is becoming more willing to do so because of the growing number of studies in the area."
Perhaps 'The Organic Center' and 'Whole Foods' are not the most objective sources you could have found. Obviously they have interests in coming down squarely on one side of this issue. This part of your article jumped off the monitor screen at me because I had just read another article that said just the exact opposite. This time the BBC article appears to have a much larger number of objective sources. Are you just writing to tell your readers what they want to hear or are your really interested in informing people of the truth? Seeing how I am the only person who cared enough to comment here, it's not obvious how many readers you actually have. Years ago I was a faithful subscriber to this magazine reading every weekly issue for more than a decade. Those days there were many reasons to recommend USN&WR to anyone of any political persuasion, who wanted to stay well informed. These days I must look elsewhere. But the sight of your masthead still recalls those journalistic standards I couldn't find in any other weekly news magazine. I do hope you'll be more mindful of those of us who remember that magazine fondly and the high expectations it gave us. Please read the BBC article which appears below to see what I'm referring to.

Barry of CA 2:26AM July 30, 2009

“Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded.
There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.
The Food Standards Agency who commissioned the report said the findings would help people make an "informed choice".
But the Soil Association criticised the study and called for better research.
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.
Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.
Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.
The same was true for studies looking at meat, dairy and eggs.
Differences that were detected, for example in levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest and are unlikely to provide any health benefit, the report concluded.
Gill Fine, FSA director of consumer choice and dietary health, said: "Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat.
"This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food.
"What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food."
She added that the FSA was neither pro nor anti organic food and recognised there were many reasons why people choose to eat organic, including animal welfare or environmental concerns.
Dr Dangour, said: "Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."
He added that better quality studies were needed.
Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said they were disappointed with the conclusions.
"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.
"Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.
"Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review. . . “
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8174482.stm