Everyone’s hungry for organic food, and it’s easy to see why: These are foods produced without chemical insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, antibiotics, hormones and other genetic modifications. But is organic food better for the environment than conventional foods?

Organic foods have a number of benefits. The chemical-free farms they’re grown on perform better than conventional farms when it comes to preserving wildlife habitat, protecting biodiversity, conserving soil fertility, and safeguarding water quality.

Organic foods taste better, too! And behind that improved flavor is a wealth of greater nutrition. A 2008 study from the Organic Center found that organic foods have 25% more nutrients than their conventional counterparts. As well, 88% of the organic produce samples tested had higher levels of antioxidants. About two thirds had greater amounts of vitamin C and vitamin E. Similarly, researchers have found that organic milk has 67% more antioxidants and vitamins; 60% more of a healthy fatty acid called CLA9; and 39 per cent more Omega-3 fatty acids compared with non-organic milk.

Most important of all, tests on conventional (i.e. non-organic) produce found that 77% contained synthetic pesticide residues. That’s a great case for organic alternatives right there!

Of course, as grocery bills attest, organic foods can cost anywhere from 10% to 40% more than conventionally-produced products.

If you need to pick and choose your organic purchases, there are ways you can cut your pesticide exposure risk significantly. Here are the foods that the Organic Center suggests always eating organic:

Cranberries
Nectarines
Peaches
Strawberries
Pears
Apples
Cherries
Cantaloupe
Green beans
Sweet bell peppers
Celery
Cucumber
Potatoes
Tomatoes
Peas
Lettuce
Grapes
Broccoli
Carrots

Where’s the Beef?

There’s certainly a lot of it: Over 91% of all American households purchase beef, and the average American eats about 63 pounds of red meat each year.

Unfortunately, most of the beef sold today comes from cows raised on giant factory feedlots where crowded, unsanitary conditions and a diet unnaturally high in protein require that the cow receive regular injections of antibiotics and hormones.

One solution to this dilemma is to eat grass-fed beef. Grass-fed cows generally are raised on smaller farms that create fewer environmental impacts. Grass-fed cows also help pull CO2 out of the atmosphere through a process called soil sequestration, which works like this: Grass absorbs carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. The plant’s cells capture this carbon and store it in its leaves and roots; the cows trample the grass into the soil, where the carbon is absorbed; new grass sprouts and the process is repeated all over again.

Grass-fed beef is healthier for people to eat as well. It’s up to three times leaner, and can have up to 15 fewer calories per ounce than meat from a grain-fed cow. If you eat a typical amount of beef each year, choosing grass-fed products would save you around 17,000 calories a year without cutting back on your appetite, a “diet” that would drop roughly 6 pounds a year off your frame.

Grass-fed meat also provides more omega-3s and omega-6 fatty acids, which help guard against a variety of ailments. Researchers have found grass- fed beef contains two newly discovered "good" fats, including Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) and up to 10 times more beta carotene. It has more folic acid and contains about four times more vitamin E.

Why is grass-fed beef more expensive? Grass-fed cows roam free on pastures, and farms can only support a certain amount of cows per acre.

While grass-fed beef solves a lot of the problems associated with conventional beef production, it’s no panacea. Grass-fed beef still requires a lot of water to produce. And grass-fed cattle still produce potent greenhouse gas methane when they digest food. One solution: eat less meat!

Comments?

Back to all Big Green Lies articles

photo: biskuit