A recent NYT article has thrown out an age-old debate addressing the merits of organic food vs conventional food.
The point of discussion appears to be centered largely a study that focuses on the aspect of nutrition, defined as: the process of providing or obtaining the food necessary for health and growth. Some interesting points, but still too narrow to really say, “that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts”.
While they say there’s no difference in nutrition, they did acknowledge that conventional veg/meat had more residual pesticides, and less omega-3 fatty acids in milk. These are all common reasons that people generally choose to go for organic food. And they didn’t analyze taste. So there doesn’t appear to be anything new in what was revealed to us, and seems to be much ado about nothing
I have had organic strawberries, and they taste much better than the ones in supermarkets that are of the same ripeness. The same can be said of supermarket/market tomatoes vs heirloom tomatoes. And this happens every single time, not just on average as reported in the article. Sure, we eat to live, but more so at Co+Op, we live to eat! If something is probably better for you, and taste obviously better, we’ll go for it!