Conventional vs. Organic

As a cancer survivor who spent two years researching conventionally grown foods and organically grown foods with a trial as me as the guinea pig, I feel obligated to comment on the recent report of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine claiming there is no nutritional difference between organic and conventional foods. The report was based on the review of fifty years worth of research papers on the subject. Since the establishment of standards and labeling of organic foods was established in the mid-1990's in both the United States and Great Britain, what was the study comparing for the previous twenty-seven years from 1958 to 1995 as stated in the study? Nevertheless, the crux of the differences between conventional foods and organic foods is in the use of toxic pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, added hormones, and other contaminants that play a dangerous role in our health. Conventional foods: plenty. Organic foods: none, as required by law.

It is also very interesting that members of the Food Standards Agency, the branch of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine that commissioned the report, happen to be former employees of agribusinesses like Arla Food (a part of Europe's largest dairy), Sarah Lee Corporation, UK grocery giant Sainbury's and other interests in agribusinesses. These large agribusinesses have huge vested interests in convincing consumers conventional food is as healthy as organic food regardless of the connection of these contaminants to diseases.

Another important omission in the study is sustainable agriculture. Organic farming protects farm workers from exposure to toxic chemicals, prevents toxic runoff into our waterways, and helps replenish the soil. What does this equal? Our personal health as well as our environmental health.

If we are going to compare conventional food with organic food, let's have an honest comparison.

Sandy Powers