It looks like you're new to The Community. If you'd like to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Login Here Signup Here Signup using FacebookHi everyone,
My closest health food store is about a 20 minute drive from my house, so I try to go there once a week and get everything I need. But, my local grocery store is right down the street and I wind up going there for produce and fruit when I run out in the middle of the week. My grocery store does not have a large assortment of organic produce, but what they do have is a reduced produce bin where I can find a lot of produce for very cheap. I just got back from the store and was able to score three head of romaine lettuce for 50 cents. At the health food store 20 minutes from my house their heads of romaine go for 2.50 a piece. The reduced produce romaine has bruises and discolored outside leaves, but inside the head is relatively clean and fresh looking.
So I was wondering....is there a big difference between the reduced produce in my grocery store (which is older and not organic) and the romaine lettuce at my health food store (which is probably very fresh and organic)? The savings is a big deal considering all the vegetables I consume in a day. And since the grocery store is right down the street I'm saving gas. What do you guys think? How big is the nutritional difference?
Thanks!
-Ellzie
Comments
I can understand needing to dash to the corner store for something you're out of, but my personal feelings on food shopping: I like to support the people who provide my food. I always prefer to buy food from someone I know versus someone I don't, someone local versus someone far away, and someone who grows organically versus not.
The farmers' market is my first choice, but if I have to buy at retail, I want to go somewhere my business will be appreciated and where I have a connection with the retailer or workers. I know this doesn't address the nutritional aspect or the environmental aspect, but I think we really do "vote with our forks" as well as our pocketbooks.
I've read in "Green for Life" that there is a huge difference in the nutritional quality of organic and conventional greens. The soil that it's grown in affects the nutrients in the actual leaves. So I would go with the organic. You are going to need to eat many times the amount of the conventional to get to the nutritional level of the conventional, so that negates the cost.
I can't tell you the exact nutritional value of your not quite fresh non-organic lettuce vs your fresh organic lettuce. In general, you can expect fresh non-hybridized organic produce grown in nutrient rich humus to have more trace minerals and other good stuff compared to non-organic produce grown w/ NPK fertilizers in poor soil.
I agree with Suasoria regarding locally owned community enterprises and with bitt regarding quantity of food and nutritional value.
Eating can be issue oriented and when it is it's multi-faceted and multitudinous. What you put in your body is one aspect, the environmental impact of growing and transporting that produce is another, supporting local independent enterprise is another.
Sorry I'm unable to give you an easy answer - I struggle with the same questions (well, maybe not struggle with but at least spend time considering).
From a practical standpoint, I'd suggest checking out the 12 most (good candidates to go organic with) and 12 least contaminated fruits and vegetables (organic vs. inorganic not as much as an issue with regard to consumption of pesticides) - you can search for "dirty dozen organic list" for more information. Note: Specifically, Lettuce rates #8 on the list.
From a "for future thought" perspective, Michael Pollan (UC Berkeley, "the Omnivore's Dilemma", "In Defense of Food") is an interesting voice on these matters. Here's a good video of him presenting at UC Davis.
Good luck!
I would trust Bitt's sources - I myself have read/heard that there is little to no nutritional difference between conventionally grown and organically grown produce. This of course is not "health difference" or "environmental difference," strictly "nutritional difference."
I'm also glad that Poorbadger mentioned Pollan, since one of the things I like about his work is that he warns us against regarding our food as purely collections of nutrients, without other considerations like sustainability, accessibility, etc.