Stanford study hints at “Organic Shmorganic”, splits eaters in two

A recent Stanford University study found that there were no real nutritional benefits to organic produce over their non-organic (and cheaper!) counterparts. The study also deemed that the amounts of pesticides in non-organic foods are almost always used in safe levels, and essentially negligible from a health standpoint.

Learn about food, population growth, and upper middle class back-to-nature romanticism. Then, don’t eat organic.

Also, be sure to learn about the details of the study and its misleading conclusions surrounding pesticides. Then, eat organic.

Confused? Me too. Thus, I prefer a schizophrenic hybrid of the two when I grocery shop. My own research has led me to believe that certain produce (mainly berries) contain the most dangerous levels of pesticides, whereas fruits with thicker skins tend to be okay for non-organic purchases. When I say thicker skins, I mean your rough-and-tumble pineapples, bananas, oranges, and peels with a degree of durability. I am stingy about organic breads, cereals, and soups because that enters a realm of more convoluted nutritional advice, as opposed to what I was just discussing, which was about the whole poisonous toxins entering your system thing. When one is on a budget, poison takes precedence, and 25-grain bread from the farm up the road becomes luxury. Of course, as the NY Times article above points out, the organic debate is one heavily steeped in economic class systems (even on a budget and my latest terror-inducing bank statement, my concern with pesticide poisoning is an admitted luxury). Organic food simply cannot be discussed without the mention of the larger inequalities of class, nutritional education, and disparate health needs among populations.

I shall pull a Bukowski now, and say that the way to end a post like this is to become suddenly quiet. Look to the distance, insert a meme.*

*The meme bit is mine, as Bukowski sadly did not survive to see memes infiltrate society.