Hey,” the salesman says, “I’ve got two products to offer you: The first is more expensive, more difficult to produce and offers negligible health benefits versus the second, but it comes with a special label. How much can I put you down for?”
“I’ll take your whole stock of the first one,” Mr. American Consumer responds, a bright gleam in his eyes for scoring such a great deal.
I’m talking here about organic foods, the growing popularity of which baffles me.
We have enough problems feeding our earth’s 7 billion people as it is. Trying to do it all organically would lead to further shortages as farmers intentionally began producing less so they could make spoiled Westerners feel healthier — not actually be healthier, mind you, just falsely believe themselves to be. It’s the placebo effect gone mad.
So you don’t think I’m a tool of Big Agriculture as I write here in the heart of the Delta surrounded by vast fields of genetically modified, pesticide-splashed crops, here are some independent studies backing up what I’m saying:
• A 2006 USDA study on soybeans showed conventional crops produced 46 bushels per acre at a cost of $278 per acre, versus 30 bushels per acre at a cost of $326 per acre for organic. So traditional soybeans produced 53 percent more and cost 14 percent less.
• A 2010 USDA corn study produced similar results but not quite as dramatic. It showed conventional corn yields were 31 percent better than organic, although the costs were 2 percent higher for conventional.
• A 2012 study published in the peer-reviewed “Annals of Internal Medicine” looked at 17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods to consider whether organic foods were safer or healthier. Its conclusion was, “The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”
• Likewise, a study published in 2006 in “Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition” found that “at our present state of knowledge, other factors rather than safety aspects seem to speak in favor of organic food.”
Like salesmanship by food companies. And it’s not just organic.
It seems nearly every product on the grocery aisle is touting itself now as somehow being healthy, although reading the fine print often shows that to be fiction.
Even my beloved Kraft macaroni and cheese is not immune. Advertisements are touting that it removed “artificial flavors, preservatives and dyes” without changing the flavor. I can only pray that is so.
I recall reading an earnings report in The Wall Street Journal for one of the big U.S. food giants recently that noted its bottom line had been hurt by a shift in consumer preference to foods that appeared healthier. I appreciated the accuracy of that reporting; it’s all about appearances.
I suppose all of this movement toward organic and allegedly healthier foods is a response to the obesity crisis, but I think its aims are misplaced.
Here’s my theory on food nutrition, which I adapted from my dad’s ideas on the issue: All food ends up in the same place and as the same thing: calories, a unit of heat. So 100 calories from an apple are just the same as 100 from an Oreo; calories don’t discriminate.
If you take in more calories than you burn, regardless of the source of said calories, you will gain weight. If you take in less than you use, you’ll lose weight. That’s an absolute law.
The unfair part is that some people’s bodies are more efficient at using calories. Unfortunately, these more-efficient people will find it harder to lose weight and easier to gain it, but that’s the hand genetics has dealt.
Disregard vitamins, minerals and such, which are needed in microscopic quantities. Eating a normal diet will provide all you need.
So if you want to be healthier, quit basing your decisions on sales gimmicks and start eating less calories and burning more. But therein you see why many prefer the panacea of organic: The real solution, although undeniable, is simply more difficult.
