The other day, I saw a story about TV and computer use among young
children with a subhead like “Evidence scant, but experts offer
advice.” This morning, there’s “Making the case for organic food” in the N&O. Why does a newspaper need to make a case for anything except on its editorial page?
The
story starts off reasonably enough with the question of whether organic
food is worth the money, and some general notes on the popularity of
organic food. The author then conflates organic food with locally grown:
There’s little evidence that organic foods contain more vitamins and
minerals. There is evidence that fruits and vegetables — both organic
and conventionally grown — lose nutrients during the time they are
being shipped and sit on store shelves. That’s one reason to buy locally grown, in-season fruits and vegetables — if they’re fresher,
they’re probably more nutritious.
It’s like the argument for hybrid cars. Sure, they cost more and the
advantages aren’t clear, but do it anyway — especially if you have the
money:
There have been very few studies of potential health effects of
long-term exposure to low doses of pesticides, herbicides and other
contaminants.And, of course, whether you someday develop cancer
or not, you’ll never know whether the choice of organic food made a
difference. After all, we’re all exposed to plenty of other
environmental contaminants every day. Still, where you have control, it
makes sense to do what you can to reduce possible risks to your health.
Here’s the final clue that the popularity of organic food places
status over health (at least until Wal-Mart becomes the biggest organic
food store).
So should you buy organic?
That depends. If money is no object, yes. Reducing your exposure to environmental contaminants makes sense.
But there’s no bias in the news.
