Writing the article on the benefits of organic food was much harder than I expected. I guess I assumed that for the premium price, you definitely would get all sorts of advantages with organic foods. I didn't expect to find so much controversy in my research! In fact, although conventional foods never came out ahead nutritionally, many studies said there was no difference between organic foods and conventional foods. This surprised me, so I started looking at who was conducting the studies. Almost every study was conducted by an organization that had an interest in the outcome being one way or the other. Of course, they found what they hoped for. Who can we believe in science these days? 

I am not going to declare that organic foods are better if they really aren't, just because I like them. I'm having a hard time finding the truth because it's hard to know who to believe. The food corporations scare me to death, but at the same time I'm not going to just assume that some Organic Organization's study is completely unbiased.

"Better" is also a multi-dimensional concept. Better in what way? I think in some ways it's clear that organics are better, particularly in terms of the environment and how the animals are treated, and based on that I make my choice to use them. Things like taste are subjective, so I can't insist that anyone must like organic food over other foods. The nutrition area is hard to tease out, since there are so many different components to good nutrition.

It seems to boil down to the question, "What is important to you when it comes to your food?" Even when you have that answer, it's still hard to know if you're finding the truth in what you read. I finished the article a bit frustrated with the process, but very glad to have investigated the issue more deeply. Doing our own research and coming up with our own conclusions, rather than simply accepting the messages that are handed to us is the only way to be true to ourselves and to live according to our beliefs.