We'd like to think pesticide-free food is better for us, but scientific proof remains elusive

With the recession breathing down our necks, you may be looking for ways to cut the household budget without seriously compromising family well-being. So here's a suggestion: If you buy organic fruits and veggies, consider going for the less pricey nonorganic produce instead.
I know, I know, abandoning an organic way of life seems unthinkable in this chemical age. But hold the e-mails and hear me out. There really is no proof that organic food, which costs about a third more, is better for us than the conventionally grown stuff.

Yes, it makes sense, intuitively, that crops grown without pesticides should be better for us. It's appealing, politically, to think that food grown the old-fashioned way, by rotating crops and nurturing the soil naturally, would be superior to food that is mass-produced and chemically-saturated.

Many people feel that way. Sales of organic food and beverages have grown from $1 billion in 1990 to well over $20 billion this year, according to the Organic Trade Association, an industry group.

But the unfortunate truth is that, from a hard-nosed science point of view, it's still unclear how much better, if at all, organic food is for human health.

"Organic," for the record, means food grown without most conventional pesticides or fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients, according to the US Department of Agriculture's website (usda.gov). To carry the "organic" seal, a product must be certified by a federally accredited agent as having been produced according federal regulations. Small farmers are exempt.

Full Story: http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/11/10/
comparing_apples_to_organic_apples/?page=full

For more information on this topic or related issues you can search the thousands of archived articles on the OCA website using keywords:

Become an OCA Member! Sign up below: