It’s complicated. Back in the “good old days” produce was grown and consumed locally and was highly seasonal. On a per-unit basis it was probably more nutritious, but nutrition is also highly dependent on preparation, so while it may have been more nutritious, much of the nutritional value may have been cooked out of it. There are of course different varietals, and these can have different nutritional values as well (it’s why orange-flesh sweet potatoes are vastly superior to white-flesh sweet potatoes). Surplus was often canned, which has its own nutritional advantages.
“Organic” doesn’t necessarily mean “heirloom,” either. As mentioned before, commercial agriculture prefers produce bred for transportation and storage, not for taste or nutrition. Many heirlooms are more delicate and therefore less desirable as they can result in more loss due to damage and spoilage. For example, at my local store the organic produce looks exactly like the conventional produce, because they are the same varietals.
However, year-round access to “fresh” produce has distinct advantages, especially in a highly plant based diet with low consumption of highly processed foods.
All things considered, eating more fresh, canned, and frozen produce is going to be better for you, regardless how it is grown.
The issue is that organic sells at a premium, often twice as much as conventional. If the narrative around organic is that it is better nutritionally and safety-wide than conventional, people may decide to eschew fresh produce because they can’t afford organic and think conventional is no good. What we want to promote is that eating any fruits and veggies is better than not eating them.
What @anon29537550 said.
Again, we have to be careful because organic doesn’t mean chemical free. Organic means fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides must also be organically derived. Unless you know and are confident in the source of your produce, you should assume it was treated with chemicals and wash it carefully. Your little friend will thank you.
I finally was able to read the study posted earlier. Importantly, they acknowledged that people who buy organic also tend to be more health conscious and make other healthy lifestyle choices which could influence the results. Their conclusions were inconclusive, and they recommend more studies to account for these factors.
Again, it’s complicated, and depends on what “better” means? Is it more delicious? That depends on whether the livestock is free range or feed-fed. Is it more nutritious? Hard to tell, as a lot depends on what the animal eats, but also fortification (of milk). Is it safer? Again, depends on whether pesticides, herbicides, etc. are in the food the animals eat then accumulate in their bodies. Is it more ethical? I honestly don’t know, the treatment of animals under organic certification is not my expertise. Maybe? Organic doesn’t mean free range or cage-free, though, but it does mean there are no antibiotics, which is a positive.
As I stated before, there is nothing inherently wrong with organic. If someone wants to buy organic, more power to them, and organic does have advantages, such as inputs derived from other organic sources, as opposed to mined or manufactured from petrochemicals. But the argument that they are more nutritious or have fewer or no harmful chemicals is not true in the aggregate. My work supports food security and nutrition, and these arguments are counter productive. We don’t want to promote the notion that organic is the only way — we want to promote fresh, unprocessed foods whether organic or conventional.
