Natural, Wholesome, Organic

People do become devoted to their ideas of advantages, particularly when one is health-inclined, views what they consume as vital to ongoing good health and have bought into the zeitgeist of "organic" as the answer to whatever ails us.  It has become nothing less than a health-food cult, the belief that organically-grown produce is superior to conventionally-grown-and-raised fruits, vegetables and livestock.

Those who are committed to good health should, instead, focus on whole foods, food products that have not been processed to the point where they bear little resemblance to nutritional, healthful food.  And that's another story altogether.  It's a story that has another component, that seriously nutrition-deficit food is to be avoided, or at the very least, indulged in rarely.

And that food that varies in nutritional and mineral and vitamin content should be the goal to be achieved in a healthy diet.

But back to organic foods.  It has long been rumoured through the results of research conducted by the scientific community that organic may not be all that it is reputed to be as a rung on the ladder to a long and healthful life.  Eating well is only one component, albeit an important one; other elements of importance are ample exercise and satisfaction in life, the happiness quotient. 

Researchers at Stanford University have reached the conclusion that organic foods are no healthier than conventional foods.  Their study found that the reduction in people's pesticide exposure is of minimal benefit since they also reached the conclusion that conventional foods' pesticide levels are harmless to human health.

Organic meat is just as likely as conventional to be bacterial contaminated, on those occasions when contamination occurs.  Germs in conventional meats, however, are 33% more potentially resistant to multiple antibiotics than the germs that can be found in organic meats - when they are present in either.

Not only is organic food not proven by scientific enquiry to be safer or healthier, it is also not better for the environment.  Farming organically produces lower crop yields, and doesn't restore minerals like potassium and phosphorus to the soil, while conventional farming does.  Farming organically, as a result, requires more land use for a lesser result.

No-till farming and genetically modified crops hold out more promise for reducing negative environmental impacts and producing sufficient products to feed a greater proportion of the world's populations than is true with organic farming techniques.  The advantages of organic farming are negligible.

On the other hand, people firmly committed to feeling good about how their food is produced and who value that train of thought will most certainly continue to look for organic and will be willing to pay the substantially higher costs of producing and purchasing it.

Just as well that it remains a cottage industry as it were.  Applied on a far larger scale the result would inevitably be overall higher food prices impacting on the ability of those living in poverty to pay.  Food would also be scarcer, harming the diets of those who cannot indulge their fancies for 'natural', 'wholesome' and 'organic'.