 |
Photo by Dustin Chambers for The New York Times
Like many small and midsize farmers, Greg Brown has not pursued organic certification
because he concluded that it was too costly relative to his profits.
|
By KIM SEVERSON
The New York Times, Published: September 8, 2012
ATLANTA — Lisa Todd’s grocery cart reflects the ambivalence
of many American shoppers.
Ms. Todd, 31, prowled the aisles of a busy Kroger store here
last week. Her cart was a tumble of contradictions: organic cabbage and jar of
Skippy peanut butter. A bag of kale and a four-pack of inexpensive white wine.
Pineapples for juicing and processed deli meat.
The chicken, perhaps, summed it up best. A package of fryer
parts from Tyson, the world’s largest poultry producer, sat next to a foam tray
of organic chicken legs.
The conventional food was for her boyfriend, the more
natural ingredients for her.
“We’re not 100 percent organic, obviously, but I try to be,”
she said. “He doesn’t care, so I’m trying to maintain happiness in the
relationship.”
Like many people who are seeking better-tasting, healthier
food, Ms. Todd had heard about a recent study on organic food from Stanford
University’s Center for Health Policy.
Based on data from 237 previously conducted studies, the
Stanford report concluded that when it comes to certain nutrients, there is not
much difference between organic and conventionally grown food.
But it also found that organic foods have 31 percent lower
levels of pesticides, fewer food-borne pathogens and more phenols, a substance
believed to help fight cancer.
For Ms. Todd and countless other shoppers, the study just
added to the stress of figuring out what to eat. And it underscored the deep
divisions at the nation’s dinner table, along with concerns among even food
purists about the importance of federal organic standards.
