The other night, my friend, Katie, noticed an interesting chart shared on Facebook, so she sent it to me. As seen below, the chart was headlined "ORGANIC VS CONVENTIONAL."
So I went to check it out. It was difficult to understand exactly what it was meant to show, as you'll see below. It was shared on a business page called "Raw Promise," alongside promotions for lots of so-called health foods and health plans. From what I gather, Raw Promise is little more than a guy trying to get people to pay him for healthy eating plans.
But I digress. The chart.
As you'll see, the numbers – whatever they may mean – are wildly higher for organic produce. People loved that. They commented in droves, sharing and re-sharing this image. Raw Promise's comment: "This kinda spells out why good Clean Organic Food is more expensive." Their followers said things like…
"soil depleted, foods depleted (may be GMO) population overfed & undernourished cravings, & many illnesses thus funding Big Pharma......."
"If that doesnt wake up the uneducated, I dont know what willlll."
"When it is put into perspective like this, it really is quite staggering and then folks wonder why there is so much sickness."
Being naturally skeptical of a pseudo-scientific chart that seemed to be missing information, I did a little digging, noticed the 1995 date, then posted the following comment:
"What is this showing exactly? The amount of minerals that show up in the produce? I would be somewhat dubious, both because of the extremes and because this is a nearly 20 year old study. Much has changed in both conventional and organic agriculture technology in that time period."
No one from Raw Promise responded but my other neighbor, Wes, took it a step further. Thanks to the wonders of Facebook, he saw my comment and really dug in. He pulled out the Google.
What he found: this chart was from a study done at Rutgers University in 1948.
And, it wasn't even looking at farming practices; it compared vegetables grown in high-organic matter soils (like say, Ohio) versus those grown in low-organic matter soils (say, a sandy coastal area out west). In 1948.
In fact, this study has been so widely misquoted to support higher mineral content in organic produce, Rutgers has added a page to their website explaining why it has nothing to do with modern organic agriculture or organic produce.
In my mind, this is the perfect example of everything that's wrong with our food culture. When something so half-baked can be passed along as evidence, with nary a second thought as to whether it's true, it gets passed along. And passed along. And passed along. And then, even when a handful of farmers share the truth (and the Rutgers link and explanation), folks continued to comment in the same vein as before. It's as if people don't really want to read and think critically. At that point, you would think "Raw Promise" would have pulled the graphic and maybe even have apologized for sharing something that had nothing to do with what they thought. But they haven't. I don’t know what to make of that, other than they clearly are not truly interested in helping their followers be healthy.
Consumers have to learn to question. We have to stop jumping on a bandwagon, when someone like "Raw Promise" comes along with another un-cited "study."
Please, for the love of all things holy, buy organic if you believe it's right for you and your family. There are great, faithful, hard-working organic farmers – like Emily and her family - who are raising amazing milk, meats and vegetables.
But don't do it based on misinformation. Get the facts. Dig a little deeper.