So should we go for Conventional-ganic?

Jul 29, 2009 No Comments by
ha ha, 20 years ago, they threw us away cause they thought we yellows were freaks!Today a UK study questioning the nutritional value of organic food made the newswires, and of course, sparked debate on the radio waves.  The study involved parsing through 50 years of research papers, zoomed in on 162 papers that compared the nutritional value of organic and conventional foods, and concluded, “the Bush administration had it right all along!”

That wasn’t quite fair, I was distracted by the YouTube video from a Santa Cruz City Council meeting getting passed around, but anyway, but if you’re buying organic simply because you think you’ll get more nutritional value, you may be wasting your money.

The article doesn’t surprise me.  I always thought buying organic should be about buying food that is sustainably harvested without the obscene use of chemicals, not about succumbing to a Whole Foods or Wal-Mart PR campaign.  After all, as a child I remember my grandmother cooking wonderfully wholesome dishes without the benefits of Whole Foods.  Remember the awful tomatoes of a generation ago at supermarkets?  The ones that were usually green and were harder than a brick?  Well, my grandmother cooked with those and she managed to feed her family and relatives just fine.  Oh, and I don’t remember her buying organic flour or sugar either.

The truth is that we’re being greenwashed.  I have never thought buying organic was an absolute must:  instead, buying locally when possible is preferred.  Buying organic means nothing if you’re buying foods sourced in Australia or South America.  Yes, I do think we should watch what chemicals we use in growing our food.  But I also think that we have 6 billion people to feed, and while I love the idea of community gardens and raising our own food, it’s not realistic.

During this raging debate over what’s green, clean, sustainable, etc., I find that one word from my youth is ignored:  conservation.  Buying more “stuff” or paying more for what’s perceived to be healthy is not necessarily being sustainable.  Living like the older generation, which meant not buying too much of anything and conserving resources, is in the end a very sustainable way to go.

air - land - quality of life, business, food and consumer products

About the author

Leon Kaye is the founder and editor of GreenGoPost.com and its advisory division, GGP Media. Contact him to discuss how he can work with your organization or event. His focus is making the business case for sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Currently he is in the United Arab Emirates exploring opportunities. He writes for San Francisco-based Triple Pundit, and now The Guardian , where he writes about waste, water, low carbon initiatives, and green building. He has also written for AIA's Architect Magazine. Leon lives in San Jose, the capital of Silicon Valley, and when he has free time, he enjoys hiking, gardening, cooking, weightlifting, and planning his next trip to one of the 50+ countries he has visited. He has an MBA from USC's Marshall School of Business and is also a proud graduate of the University of Maryland-Baltimore County (UMBC) and Cal State-Fresno.
No Responses to “So should we go for Conventional-ganic?”

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to comments.