organic???

A couple people asked me today if I had seen the study that came out from the UK today stating that organic food had no nutritional benefit. I often question the idea of "certified organic" since in many cases the standards are questionable (why are we not shooting for biodynamic or something else beyond organic?) and are often not accessible to smaller farmers (since it costs money to get certified). When we had our restaurant Ruppert's we would answer the question "is everything here organic" by explaining that although many things were if we stuck to that rule we would not be able to use the greens, herbs and figs that we grew in our own city garden just blocks from the restaurant...or serve the baby leeks that one of our favorite organic farmers elderly neighbor grew. By unquestionably accepting the certification we would not be involved in the evaluation process but would be giving that decision making up to an entity in power to deem whether or not a certain food was certified or not.

Despite, I am certain that organic food is superior to most conventionally grown foods. Even more so if we get past nutrient content and acknowledge that we need to live in collaboration with the planet to be healthy (how is this not obvious??). I was further confused by the source of todays information because my favorite sources for up to date information about good food practices are from the UK, The Ecologist and The Guardian. So, as soon as I came home I read the headlines of the study released today and then I turned to the Guardian to see what they had to say. They articulated my thoughts and more, check out todays article "Good Reason For Going Organic".