What the NY Times doesn’t know might hurt you

In today’s edition of the Dining and Wine section of the New York Times, there appears an article about New York City’s Greenmarket (a consortium of farmers markets throughout the city). The article claims to uncover a controversy among the city’s organic enthusiasts as the former director of the Greenmarket (who was “dismissed” in 2004) begins her own market venture, incorporating non-local foods and non-farmer producers in an effort to give consumers “everything they need for Saturday night dinner.”

The article makes good points about the never-ending nuances of organic food and the often overwhelming feelings organic shoppers can get when they are faced with often contradictory messages about how to do the “right thing.”

What struck me as odd was a statement from the 6th paragraph down:

“In its February issue, Consumer Reports magazine assessed the relative pesticide contents of organically and conventionally grown produce, and found that for many fruits and vegetables, the difference was imperceptible. Is this reason enough to forsake expensive organic bananas and broccoli?”

I thought this was odd, so I looked back through that February issue and found this statement:

“We found, for example, that it’s worth paying more for organic apples, peaches, spinach, milk, and beef to avoid chemicals found in conventionally produced versions of those items. But you can skip organic asparagus and broccoli because conventional varieties generally have undetectable pesticide levels. You can also pass on organic seafood and shampoo, which have labels that are often misleading”

Talk about misleading! Rather than an “imperceptible difference” in “many fruits and vegetables,” it seems that Consumer Reports only mentioned two vegetables where the differences were negligible – and they were asparagus and broccoli, not bananas and broccoli.

I thought this was odd, so I looked back through that February issue and found this statement:

“We found, for example, that it’s worth paying more for organic apples, peaches, spinach, milk, and beef to avoid chemicals found in conventionally produced versions of those items. But you can skip organic asparagus and broccoli because conventional varieties generally have undetectable pesticide levels. You can also pass on organic seafood and shampoo, which have labels that are often misleading”

Talk about misleading! Rather than an “imperceptible difference” in “many fruits and vegetables,” it seems that Consumer Reports only mentioned two vegetables where the differences were negligible – and they were asparagus and broccoli, not bananas and broccoli.

The Consumer Reports article goes on to say that 21 different pesticides are transferable to a developing fetus through the mother’s bloodstream, and that a lot of those pesticides can be toxic to the brain and therefore affect intelligence and behavior later on. The article also mentions a study that tested the pesticide levels in children’s urine, showing an immediate decrease in those levels once the children switched to an organic diet.

Whether intentional or just careless, that statement could very well lead many people to believe that there’s no difference between organic and conventional food when it comes to your health.

As for the Greenmarket vs. new market controversy, it seems like the new “hybrid” market being created to appease consumers’ needs for variety could be a useful tool for making farm products more available to the average consumer, or an echo of what big corporations would like to see done to organic – a slide into looser definitions. People will think that, by shopping at an outdoor “farm market” they are supporting local agriculture. But if the locally-made products sold there come from fruits and vegetables raised in another state, or even another country, doesn’t that defeat the purpose?

Read the article and decide for yourself.