At City Feed in Jamaica Plain — one of Boston's go-to destinations for organic foods — customers didn't seem to concerned about a new study that questioned the health benefits of eating organic.
The study, which was conducted by researchers at Stanford University, reviewed four decades of data on organic produce and meat and found that the benefits of eating organic are questionable.
The researchers found that organic foods do offer some benefits — including fewer traces of pesticides on produce and less bacterial contamination on meats. But they also found that, on balance, organic food is no more nutritious than conventional alternatives.
But at City Feed on September 4, the organic die-hards who spoke with WGBH said they won't be changing their shopping habits any time soon.
"I like to avoid pesticides," said Peggy Lynch of Cambridge. "I like to see fewer chemicals in our soil. And I really feel for the farmworkers who have to apply pesticides."
Lynch added that her decision to buy organic is based on environmental concerns, too.
"We need insects," she said. "We need bees. We need those small creatures to be part of our ecosystem."
Nathan Bowen of Jamaica Plain was similarly unimpressed.
"It's just one study," he said.
Bowen said he tends to buy local food that's also organically raised — and that his motivations remain intact.
"The reduction in transportation costs and fossil-fuel use is important to me personally," Bowen explained. "I also think it’s nice to know my eggs come from Farmer Joe down the street."
Of course, since organic food items frequently costs more than conventional equivalents, that knowledge has a price. And Stanford's study may give some ambivalent customers an excuse not to pay it.
