retail news in context, analysis with attitude

National Public Radio (NPR) reports that the American Academy of Pediatrics has decided to contradict a recent Stanford University study suggesting that because there is little nutritional difference between traditional foods and organics, there is little reason to spend more money on organics.

In a just-released report, the Academy says that it is worth it for parents to buy organics for their children "to avoid pesticide residues," and because "relying on federal standards for pesticide residue isn't good enough."

According to the story, "The pediatricians are worried because babies of female farm workers in California showed small but significant developmental and motor delays when their mothers were exposed to pesticides at levels similar to those deemed acceptable in conventionally grown produce while pregnant.

"No studies have been done to see if exposure to similar levels of pesticides from simply eating produce would cause similar problems. But since early childhood exposure to lead and other toxins at very low levels is now known to be harmful, the pediatricians think caution is in order."

The Academy concedes that when organics cost more than traditional fruits and vegetables, it makes sense to buy mainstream items rather than not eat fresh produce at all.
KC's View:
I have to admit that if I had young children today, I might make some very different decisions about meals and menus. I wonder if I indulged them too much, cooked the wrong things too often, and simply was not vigilant enough about making family food decisions.

I'm not sure I did anything wrong. But I'm pretty sure that in matters of food - as in so many ways - I certainly did not do everything right.