Why Organic Is Better (Never Mind the Study)
Letters To The Editor
New York Times
“Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce” (news article, Sept. 4) misses the point.
The first sentence suggests that people eat organic food with the hope of getting more vitamins per serving. I choose organic food because it contains fewer pesticides, and is grown more naturally.
Furthermore, the article contradicts the implications of the headline; it provides evidence that organic food contains fewer chemicals, and cites several examples that validate the reality that organic food is in fact healthier.
The fact that nonorganic food also contains pesticide levels below the standards of the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t indicate that organic and nonorganic foods are actually equally healthy.
Finally, the article acknowledges that this study ignores food’s taste, and doesn’t mention other factors, including support of independent farmers, healthier conditions for workers, biodiversity and reduced environmental degradation.
JOSH GRAY Roxbury, Conn., Sept. 4, 2012
To the Editor:
It is clearly obvious that the scientists did not take taste into account in determining differences between organic and nonorganic produce. There is a world of difference between the delectable, mouthwatering taste of organic tomatoes and strawberries and the practically cardboard taste of the conventional ones.
While I certainly prefer not to be consuming extra pesticides with my fruit (no matter what the amount), it is the extraordinary taste difference that explains my willingness to pay more for the organic produce at the supermarket.
JUDITH NATKINS Jackson Heights, Queens, Sept. 4, 2012
Published 1 year, 2 months ago under The Good Life