I've read many time articles
citing "a study" that decided that organic food is no more nutritious
than the rest of the food on the grocery shelf. So, the labels
"organic" and "conventional" is what I want to discuss. Each
state determines what standards and governing bodies are used to certify what
is organic. If all the right "hoops" are jumped through, those
foods can be certified organic. BUT some of the best (most nutritious) food you
can buy and the worst (least nutritious) food can be found on the organic
shelf.
This can happen, but how it’s certified organic. Even though both products are certified organic, they were raised quite differently. Working with nature will usually produce higher quality food than forcing nature with nitrate fertilizers and this goes for organic or conventional. You see there are more options than just organic and conventional.
One can be certified organic but still be thinking conventionally
and forcing nature while using all organic approved materials.
Then there are conventional producers
who tend to work more with nature rather than forcing it with lots of nitrate
fertilizers. Both producers who worked with nature can raise nutrient intense
food.
Other than the obvious reason of better nutrition, what else is nutrient density good for? It so happens that high nutrient dense food is the product of denser plants as well. By denser, I mean literally the plant sap has more solids content than less dense plants. These plants are more resistant to disease. That is how true biological systems can work to survive without fungicides and pesticides. (easier said than done) End results of healthier plants is healthier food. Systems that force nature will grow less dense plants, that is more watery sap, resulting in more susceptibility to disease, thus needing fungicides and pesticides.
When you hear about a "study" lumping all organic food together, I want to know how that food was raised because it does makes a difference.
The labels "organic" and
"conventional" should be put in proper context before any
inferences can be made. A truly scientific study would take this into
account before making such a sweeping statement, but then there is a lot of
that going on now days on both sides of this issue.
Other than the obvious reason of better nutrition, what else is nutrient density good for? It so happens that high nutrient dense food is the product of denser plants as well. By denser, I mean literally the plant sap has more solids content than less dense plants. These plants are more resistant to disease. That is how true biological systems can work to survive without fungicides and pesticides. (easier said than done) End results of healthier plants is healthier food. Systems that force nature will grow less dense plants, that is more watery sap, resulting in more susceptibility to disease, thus needing fungicides and pesticides.
When you hear about a "study" lumping all organic food together, I want to know how that food was raised because it does makes a difference.
Comments
Post a Comment