The Conventional vs. Organic Debate Continues

The debate over conventional vs. organic food will probably go on forever. In fact, I just saw this story on the news, which reiterates my point. There will always be studies to sway people one way, then studies to refute the original studies. But in the conventional vs. organic debate, my position remains firm. I continue to believe that many of the health problems we experience today are from continuous long-term exposure to  toxins, hormones, and herbicides/pesticides.  

It’s hard to make the correlation between long-term exposure to health problems for several reasons. 

One, the time lag between the exposure and the manifestation and diagnosis of a disease, like cancer, can be decades.  

Two, exposure rates to toxins are different for each individual.  

Three, each of us has biological weaknesses, genetic variations, nutritional gaps, and other factors that vary our susceptibility to developing different diseases. This makes it hard to pinpoint the exact cause sometimes. When it comes to many diseases where the cause is unknown, for example Lou Gehrig’s disease, I personally believe certain individuals are more sensitive to pesticides, herbicides, or other toxins/chemicals.

The take-home message is two-fold. It just makes sense to avoid unnecessary toxin exposure. And buying organic produce, wild-caught fish, and free-range meats, eggs, and poultry whenever possible really is one of the best ways to do that. 

Also, it’s important to take protective antioxidants, minerals, and vitamins on a continuous and regular basis to prevent or minimize any damage that might occur with toxin exposure.

Now it's your turn: Do you choose organic over conventional?

You May Also Be Interested In:

• Diet Basics for Optimum Health
  
• Why You Need Supplements for Optimum Nutrition