GreenTracker| TIME magazine digs into the international healthy food debate with Organic Food: What Are the Real Benefits? The well-balanced article is largely focused on meat consumption and weaves a lens of consideration that includes animal welfare.
Always mindful of the increased cost of organic food, TIME argues that ‘cost’ could be defined beyond the narrow parameter of cost to consumer, considering costs to the environment, health care costs, and costs to animal wellbeing.
Enlightenment came on the page 4 reference to the 2009 study on organic food, concluding that organic food wasn’t superior nutritionally. This proclamation disappointment many ‘greens’ including us.
The real difference between organic and nonorganic produce is in the relative presence of micronutrients such as copper, iron and manganese, as well as folic acid, none of which were included in the study. With these, the results are mixed. via TIME
Organic produce was found to be 25% higher in phenolic acids and antioxidants, not considered in the organic food survey. We haven’t followed up on this info-byte, but it underscores that even in the organic food debate, one must be clear about exactly what’s included and what not in what was purported to be a comprehensive study on organic vs non-organic food.