Why Chocolate Is Better Than Organic Food?

Which is better—Coke or Pepsi? Chocolate or Vanilla? Conventional food or Organic food? Wait, what? It’s easy for us to form answers from our own opinions, but not from scientific research. Your best friend might love Pepsi, but you could be an adamant supporter of Coke. There is no true evidence that chocolate is better than vanilla. The same applies to food. No one can prove scientifically that organic food is better than conventional food. That’s not to say that regular food is unhealthier or worse for us, it just has not been proven that it is nutritionally superior. Since there is not enough substantial evidence to prove that organic food is more nutritional, safe, or beneficial, it cannot be said that organic food is better than regular food. How did this “organic” trend begin? In the 1940s, J.I. Rodale sparked the fire for non-chemical farming and production methods. Rodale is considered the father of the modern organic farming movement. His ideas led from the forties to the seventies, when people became more concerned about environmental health and
They studied the documents and came to a conclusion: there are no proven advantages of eating organic food (Are). There are many claimed advantages, such as higher antioxidant and omega-3 fatty acid content, but they have not been effective. High antioxidant concentration does not guarantee a more nutritious vegetable or fruit (Ferreira). The only nutrient found to be significantly higher in organic food is phosphorus. This is considerably inconsequential, because only a small percent of people have a phosphorus deficiency (Are). The bottom line is that there is not enough evidence for organic foods to be proven more nutritious. A completely organic diet will not guarantee a healthier body, mind, or lifestyle. To sum it up, researcher Crystal Smith-Spangler