September 11, 2012

Earlier this week, a [meta-analysis released by Stanford University](http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685) concluded that organic foods are not any more nutritious than conventionally grown ones. The study, which combined data from 237 different research projects, [got a lot of press coverage](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html?_r=4&hp), and most people probably interpreted the findings as a hard case against spending a couple extra bucks at the store for organic foods.

Indeed, the report does seem to raise a glaring question: Why should a consumer buy more expensive organic foods when they are not any more nutritious than conventionally grown ones? Well, the first step in answering this question is to deconstruct the widely held notion that organic is somehow centered on the concept of making food more nutritious.

Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University, sums up organics accurately and with considerable concision, saying [on Food Politics](http://www.foodpolitics.com/2012/09/are-organics-more-nutritious-again-sigh/), “Organics is about production methods free of certain chemical pesticides, herbicides, irradiation, GMOs, and sewage sludge in crops, and antibiotics and hormones in animals.”

And, shockingly enough, as the authors of the Stanford study conclude, “Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.” So, it seems that there is really no viable reason not to lean toward an organic diet, unless consumers want to expose themselves to potentially harmful production practices just to save a few extra bucks at the store.

To really identify with the organic food movement and the quasi-altruistic/environmental label it’s associated with, people should not stop at organics in their quest for a more environmentally healthy lifestyle. We should realize the complex and harrowing issue of organic foods: the fact that our planet’s population will [reach 9 billion by mid-century](http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Other-Information/Press_Release_WPP2010.pdf) and that our environment is becoming [increasingly unsustainable](http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2012/07/0250.xml&contentidonly=true) to traditional – no less organic – forms of agriculture. In some way or another, we will have to adapt to these changes.

And, after analyzing the conditions of this scenario, there seem to be only two distinct ways to adapt to our future food crisis: 1) address the food, or 2) address the environment.

Addressing our planet’s food supply is probably the lesser of the two options in terms of general popularity, as the thought of pesticides and bioengineered crops is typically held with contempt. However, even some passionate environmentalists think that bioengineered crops may well be our best bet for avoiding a global food crisis within the next century.

Stewart Brand, a well-known writer and long-time environmental activist, came out with his endorsement of bioengineered crops in 2009, [Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto](http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/09/whole-earth-catalog-book-review). And while there are some parts of Brand’s overall argument I take issue with, his assertion that bioengineered crops will become necessary to support a surging population on a warming planet is something I stand in confident solidarity with.

However, there is no question we would all rather keep our food supply natural, untouched by bioengineering at any level. The undesirable future practice of bioengineered food is something that can be prevented if we demonstrate support for substantial policy to combat global warming as soon as possible.

So, is shopping organic helpful in voicing our support for more sustainable practices? Yes, but we shouldn’t stop there. If we really care about our food supply and the production methods associated with it, we should also be inclined to get involved with student groups aimed at developing sustainable practices and follow certain lifestyle guidelines to reduce waste and fossil fuel dependency.

The organic food movement is one with good intentions, but it is not a pragmatic long-term solution to our evolving food crisis. Pesticides, herbicides and GMOs will only become more necessary as our planet heats up and our food supply becomes even more vulnerable. If we are worried about the current state of conventional agriculture, it’s only right we look forward and inform ourselves of the dangers of global warming as well, no doubt ushering in a future era of near-ubiquitous conventional production methods.

Comments

The Maneater has the right to remove comments that do not comply with policies surrounding hate speech.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content