Preface
Quick Summary Findings: Organic produce is healthier than non-Organic produce because it does not contain harmful pesticides.
Author Note: I write like a lawyer (go figure). This is a long article because it’s presented like a legal paper studying the rules and applying them to the facts. If you know nothing about Organic, this paper will provide you with a good starting point.
Introduction
This is the first in a series on whether eating Organic food is healthier. In this article we’re discussing whether eating Organic fruits and vegetables is healthier than non-Organic produce.
Most of my posts in this category of writings I term, “Wisdom”, may be controversial. My intention is to bring awareness to food sustainability issues. I find it to be a very controversial subject. However, sparking healthy debate is an important part of the process to lead to involved discussions about what to eat. It is so important to think about what we eat as it relates to our health. I have come to learn that what’s on our plate affects everything.
In order to make decisions, we need to be aware of the issues. While the issue of “Organic” is a heavily debated topic, I am not here to create an argument, or settle one. Rather, this is a thought-provoking article explaining what I have come to learn about Organic and my reasons for choosing it.
What I Have Learned About Food
I am passionate about the quality of the food I eat. In the small midwestern town where my family lives, we have plenty of green space to grow our own produce. I was raised on the philosophy that garden to table produces the best tasting, and healthiest, food. Growing produce, harvesting it and preserving it are very important functions in my family. If you have heard of the phrase “food is love”, it has always been well-lived by us. It’s a concept I learned early on from my grandparents who grew their food and ate according to the seasons.
As an adult, using fresh and local ingredients continued to be important to my way of life. Home ownership in my 20’s meant I could start growing my own food. For the food I didn’t grow myself, I visited the farmer’s markets and shopped local. As a busy young professional and mother, I often did not have time to grow a lot of food, so I depended on those markets. But the food coming from my own garden was always special.
I have always understood that food is connection and legacy as much as it is nourishment. The quality of my food is important to me because I know it affects my health, but it is equally as important for my family’s sustainability. The way I prepare food is similar to the way my grandmother taught me. The things I grow in my garden are the same that my grandfather grew in his. Generations pass down the stories, the techniques and the recipes. I feel connected to my grandparents even though they have long passed. I feel that connection through food and it is how I keep my grandparents’ legacy alive.
Later in life I have come to realize a more important concept about food: eating to thrive. Yes, the food we eat relates directly to our physical health. But also, food plays a major role in our mental and spiritual well-being too. This concept that food relates to our overall well-being and happiness ties together everything I have learned about food during my lifetime.
The most important concept about food I have learned:
Michelle Adams
Eating good food in order to thrive.
The Importance of Good Food
The common denominator in the eating to thrive equation is the ingredients. The ingredients we use affect the quality of the food we make, which in turn affects our well-being and happiness. Ingredients don’t just affect our physical status, but also our mental and emotional status. How happy are you when you eat a mealy apple or a dry piece of cake?
Moreover, I don’t believe in depriving myself of food I love. I can make anything healthier when I make it from scratch with quality ingredients, even cakes. The use of quality butter, organic flour and farm fresh produce will turn dessert into a much healthier option than the pre-packaged ones in the big box store made with ingredients I can’t pronounce. Sitting down with friends after dinner sharing pie and coffee is a moment shared with joy, creating long-lasting memories.
The topic of the quality of our food has never been more important than it is right now. We need good food to sustain our health, our way of life and our planet. Over the last few years it has become apparent just how broken our food system is, and how much it needs our help. It is for that reason that I set out on a mission to search for the truth about the produce I buy.
It is axiomatic that the produce I grow is healthiest because I do not use pesticides. But quite honestly, most people do not grow all their own food. This is why this topic is so relevant to discuss.
For the produce that we purchase, is Organic produce really healthier than non-Organic produce?
This article discusses what I discovered as I explored the truth of whether Organic Produce is healthier than non-Organic produce.
Organic Produce Defined
The Produce Safety Rule under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) defines produce as “any fruit or vegetable (including mixes of intact fruits and vegetables) and includes mushrooms, sprouts (irrespective of seed source), peanuts, tree nuts and herbs.”
For the definition of Organic, I went straight to the USDA website:
USDA certified organic foods are grown and processed according to federal guidelines addressing, among many factors, soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and weed control, and use of additives. Organic producers rely on natural substances and physical, mechanical, or biologically based farming methods to the fullest extent possible.
Produce can be called organic if it’s certified to have grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest. Prohibited substances include most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. In instances when a grower has to use a synthetic substance to achieve a specific purpose, the substance must first be approved according to criteria that examine its effects on human health and the environment . . .(emphasis added).
. . . . . .
As with all organic foods, none of it is grown or handled using genetically modified organisms, which the organic standards expressly prohibit (see “Organic 101: What Organic Farming (and Processing) Doesn’t Allow”).
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means
For the purposes of this article I am assuming that Organic Produce is sold as it is intended to be sold: certified organic food that is free of prohibited substances.
Prohibited Substances Defined
The National Organics Standards Board publishes the list of allowed and prohibited substances in organic farming. Essentially, non-synthetic (natural) substances are allowed unless specifically prohibited, and synthetic substances are prohibited unless specifically allowed. The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances is long and can be viewed here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-M/part-205/subpart-G/subject-group-ECFR0ebc5d139b750cd
Therefore, Organic produce must be grown without using synthetic herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers.
This article is meant to discover the truth of one thing: if organic produce is as it is supposed to be (produced without pesticides (and other harmful substances) and free of pesticide residue, is it better for you than non-organic produce?
Food Safety Monitoring
Pesticides are chemicals that kills pests and weeds. Specifically, the name for the chemicals used in agriculture are “herbicides”, but they are a form of pesticide. The main exposure of pesticide residue is through our diet and thus, requires monitoring.
The Pesticide Data Program (PDP) supplies most of the data concerning pesticide residue on food. The PDP is the USDA’s pesticide monitoring program established in 1991. The crux of the program is to provide objective and comprehensive data on actual pesticide residue on food at the consumer level. The program is a partnership between the federal government and the states to collect and monitor food sold to consumers.
After the USDA established the program amid concerns about pesticide residue on the food consumed by children, it was authorized by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to collect pesticide residue data on commodities most frequently consumed by infants and children. To do this, samples are collected from ten states that represent at least 50% of the country’s population. Commodities are sampled from all four quadrants of the United States. Samples are collected closer to the point of consumption to best monitor exposure the harmful substances that may exist on food at the consumer level.
In its 30 year history, the PDP has analyzed well over 300,000 samples across 126 commodities ranging from produce, dairy, grains and meat to packaged and processed foods. Food is sampled for over 500 residues, and the results of both detected residue, and non-detected residue, are reported.
The Environmental Protections Agency (EPA) sets the tolerance levels for pesticides on food. In addition to setting the tolerance levels, the EPA also controls the program that licenses the pesticide makers, conducts pesticide inspections and enforces pesticide labelling provisions. The EPA is the primary user of the PDP data and uses it to monitor the safety of existing pesticide tolerances, particularly in regards to pesticide registration. It also uses the data to prepare environmental reports.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the entity that enforces the tolerances set by the EPA. The FDA uses the PDP data in its enforcement and regulatory programs. In its own enforcement program, the FDA tests a broad range of commodities for over 800 different pesticide residues. The FDA monitors pesticide residues on food and publishes its Total Diet Study (TDS), a program that monitors chemicals in the average U.S. diet. It uses the tolerances set by the EPA to determine the safe levels of pesticides on food.
When the PDP determines that a tolerance level has been exceeded, it reports the data to the EPA and FDA as presumptive violations. Other entities using the PDP data include the World Health Organization (WHO), scientists, researchers, journalists, doctors and various industry organizations. To view the PDP database visit: https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp/pdpdata
Pesticides and Our Food
In reading through the reports of the PDP,EPA and FDA, there is no question that when we consume conventional produce, we are consuming pesticides. In the latest reports, over 50% of the produce tested contain pesticide residue. However, 99% of the residues detected were below the threshold levels set by the EPA because the EPA has determined that “trace” amounts of pesticides are acceptable.
The PDP also supports the EPA’s requirements under the Food Quality Protection Act. In theory, these are stricter safety standards with a complete reassessment of all pesticide tolerances. The FQPA directs the EPA to make a safety finding when setting pesticide tolerances. Specifically, pesticides can be used when there is reasonable certainty they will not cause harm.
In its “Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment” the EPA notes:
Carcinogen risk assessment models have generally been based on the premise that risk is
proportional to cumulative lifetime dose. The exposure metric used for carcinogenic risk assessment has been the lifetime average daily dose (LADD) or, in the case of inhalation exposure, the lifetime average exposure concentration. (emphasis added).
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2013-09/documents/cancer_guidelines_final_3-25-05.pdf
Further,
“EPA is also required to consider available information concerning the combined toxic effects to human health that may result from dietary, residential, or other nonoccupational exposure to chemicals that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA, Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment of Pesticide
Chemicals That Have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity, at 5 (Jan. 14, 2002); 21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(2)(D)(v)
Therefore, I submit that the issue should not be what amount of pesticides are we exposed to in a certain food at a certain time is safe, but rather, what amount of pesticides are we exposed to cumulatively is safe? This would mean that even trace amounts of pesticides are an important factor in a cumulative assessment model.
Glyphosate and Our Food
The world’s most widely used weed killing chemical is Glyphosate. The Monsanto Company introduced it in the 1970’s. Monsanto was known up until then for manufacturing DDT and Agent Orange. Monsanto chemists combined Glyphosate with ingredients that allowed the chemical to be absorbed into plant tissue resulting in the death of the plant. Its Roundup weed killer was so effective at this task that it quickly became the biggest seller of herbicides, not just in the United States, but all over the world.
Monsanto alleged that its Roundup was so safe it could be used by people for residential use as well as for industrial farming. In fact, visit your local hardware store and you’ll find shelves lined with it. Monsanto has told the world that no harm will come from the use of Glyphosate because it only interacts with plants, not with people or animals. The EPA has agreed, initially approving Glyphosate for registration in 1974.
Since then, the EPA has approved Glyphosate in an array of products, from Roundup to Roundup-ready seeds. Farmers use it to spray fields of corn, oats, soybeans and wheat, while people use it on their lawns and backyard gardens. It is an approximately $8 Billion dollar market, and over 9 million tons of it is sprayed worldwide. Other pesticides do not come close to this level.
Monsanto came under pressure for its Roundup products in 2015 with emergence of claims that Glyphosate causes harm to people and animals. Attorneys for the injured discovered decades of hidden research linking cancer and other illnesses to the products and claimed that those reports had been hidden by Monsanto and dismissed by the EPA. Questions whether the EPA has worked to protect Monsanto’s profits instead of public harm began to surface. In 2018 the Monsanto company was absorbed by the Bayer company, which continues to make and market Glyphosate.
The EPA has classified Glyphosate as “safe”, (https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate). Because of this, the PDP does not test for it on products consumed in the United States. This seems so strange since the point of the PDP is to monitor what chemicals are on our food, safe or not.
While Glyphosate is missing in reports coming from the USDA and EPA, the FDA does report on it. The FDA’s data shows that Glyphosate is found on a wide range of products, from produce to grains. However, testing by the FDA is not only not as extensive, but it also follows the tolerances set by the EPA.
The USDA has indicated it does not test for Glyphosate because it would be a waste of time and resources given the fact that it is considered “safe”. Obviously, again, this is because of the EPA’s conclusions.
In Canada, results on Glyphosate demonstrate “alarm” at how pervasive it is in our food. Per data, 280 million pounds. of glyphosate are applied to 298 million acres annually in agriculture, and an additional 24 millions pounds per year in non-crop settings. Glyphosate is not merely sprayed to kill weeds now. It is also used as a crop desiccant to aid in harvest.
One conclusion to be drawn from the disturbing fact that America does not test enough for Glyphosate on food is that if tested, glyphosate will be found on our food in more than trace amounts and further, that our cumulative exposure to it would demonstrate excessive harm.
Perhaps this is a prime case of plausible deniability as to why the PDP data does not include Glyphosate, perhaps something more ominous. Since its registration of Glyphosate in 1974 the EPA has not regulated Glyphosate, but rather, it has facilitated increased Glyphosate usage. Despite the increasing reliance on Glyphosate, the EPA has not altered its tolerance levels.
One would think that due to the extensive usage of Glyphosate, and that far more people and organisms and land is exposed to it than any other pesticide, that it would be the most regulated pesticide, not the opposite.
“On Feb. 3, 2020, the EPA published the Glyphosate Interim Registration Review Decision (ID). The ID did not identify any human health risks of concern from exposure to glyphosate but did identify potential ecological risks. ” https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-withdraws-glyphosate-interim-decision. Following this, on June 17, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the human health portion of the glyphosate ID. Based on the Court of Appeals decision, the EPA withdrew its published registration review and is currently undertaking a new one. It has stated it will complete its review in 2026.
While the world anxiously waits another three years to determine what the EPA will report about Glyphosate, I submit this:
If we presume that Glyphosate is prevalent on our food, even at trace amounts (which is difficult to believe given its excessive usage), is it as safe as the EPA and USDA notes, or is it as harmful as the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against Monsanto have proven?
Even though the PDP data is silent on Glyphosate, 251 other pesticides were found on food in its most recent reporting.
The Harm of Pesticides
Is there a connection between pesticides like Glyphosate and illness? Since 2015 the World Health Organization has classified Glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Other studies show that even trace amounts of it result in damage to liver and kidneys.
Numerous studies have been done on the relationship between pesticides and health. Most of these studies, even when inconclusive in linking more serious disease to an amount of pesticide ingestion, have agreed that pesticide residues through diet may offset the beneficial nutritional effect of produce intake.
The PDP database, even if silent on Glyphosate, have over 500 chemicals in its databank which have been found on our food since its inception. Since Glyphosate is the most widely used and its harm has been proven, we’ve focused on it in this article. The extensive rise and use of Glyphosate raises serious concerns, given its potential links with cancer. In 2019, a study linked Glyphosate to Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL). “Using our a priori hypothesis and including the recently updated AHS cohort in a meta-analysis for the first time, we report that Glyphosate Based Herbicide exposure is associated with increased risk of NHL in humans.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300887
Additionally, the crux of the over 10,000 lawsuits filed against Bayer-Monsanto in regards to its Roundup weed killer is that it causes severe illness, particularly cancer, to people. Monsanto has already been found guilty in several of the suits when juries determined that evidence proves Roundup causes cancer (in 2019, $2 billion to a California couple; in 2019, 80 million to another California man; and in 2019, the landmark case resulting in a verdict of $289 million.) In 2020 it settled a class action lawsuit for a combined total of $11 billion dollars.
The EPA has noted that, “When cancer effects in exposed humans are attributed to exposure to an agent, the default option is that the resulting data are predictive of cancer in any other exposed human
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2013-09/documents/cancer_guidelines_final_3-25-05.pdf
population.”
By the EPA’s own standards, the Monsanto juries finding Glyphosate resulted in cancer is presumptive that cancer is a general risk to anyone exposed to Glyphosate.
One argument used by Glyphosate proponents is to disregard the jury findings in the Roundup cases. Essentially it is argued that ‘juries don’t understand science’. This is meant to discredit the Monsanto verdicts by implying that the juries in those cases did not understand the evidence and were incorrect. This is a classic example of people spreading misinformation because there is absolutely no basis for this allegation. Furthermore, since most of the evidence in those cases has been sealed, those juries know more than we do.
As a civil trial attorney for most of my career, I have tried many cases in front of a jury, often presenting complicated matters of medicine and law to them. Admittedly, when we pick a jury we understand they most likely have never considered such issues before. But this is our judicial system in America. Every day courtrooms are filled with people who are not experts. In professional malpractice suits, lawyers, doctors, and accountants all face common juries. Are the critics here suggesting it should be different for Monsanto—that for some reason juries may decide and come to understand issues in medical malpractice litigation or construction litigation, but not when it relates to pesticides causing cancer? The Monsanto juries let their verdicts speak the truth and that truth is Glyphosate causes cancer.
How much exposure is enough to cause cancer is unknown because there are not enough studies at this time.
“Increased rates of CVD or CVD mortality among farmers and pesticide applicators have been found in some studies (Dayton et al., 2010; Fleming et al., 2003; Lee et al., 2002), although findings have not been consistent across studies (Blair et al., 1993; Blair et al., 2005; Mills et al., 2009). However, for most individuals, chronic low-level exposure to pesticide residues through diet and other sources is more relevant in terms of exposure burden but remains vastly understudied (Tsatsakis et al., 2017).
The above study did find that pesticide residues may modify some cardiovascular benefits of consuming fruits and vegetables (“FVs”). Further, it noted that this conclusion, when combined with that of other studies showing “that replacing conventional diet with an organic diet reduces exposure to organophosphate or pyrethroid pesticides (Bradman et al., 2015; Curl et al., 2019; Hyland et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2008; Lu et al., 2006; Oates et al., 2014), suggested that consuming organically grown FVs for the high-pesticide-residue counterparts may be beneficial.” www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6754761/
In addition to cancer, Glyphosate has been shown to cause other health problems as well. The EPA has set tolerance levels for Glyphosate by testing it on animals such as rats and rabbits. Studies show that Glyphosate results in fatty liver disease, reduced fertility, renal tubular dilation, and even diarrhea. While, the EPA admits it does not test pesticide effect on the gut microbiome, EPA 4/23/18, p. 9, many independent doctors and researchers do allege such a connection. “Our results demonstrate that more than one-half of human microbiome are intrinsically sensitive to glyphosate.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9145961/
Analysis: The Case for Organic Produce
There is no doubt that eating a diet high in plant-based foods is important. Produce is an integral part of a healthy lifestyle. In fact, it has been proven that the people who live in the places of the world known for their longevity (the Blue Zones) consume a diet that consists of 95% plant-based foods. http://www.bluezones.com . Such a diet has been proven to be vital not just to ward off illness, but also to reverse it. It has been shown effective for those suffering from cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, cancer and a host of other illnesses.
So when it comes to those vital plants, does eating the Organic version really matter?
In this article we’ve learned that pesticides are sprayed on the majority of our food. We have also learned that certified Organic food is not sprayed with harmful pesticides. We’ve further discovered that pesticides cause illness. So if we switch to Organic, will it actually make a difference?
According to researchers at the Health Research Institute, the answer to that is yes. They did a study to measure Glyphosate in the urine of 16 people (children and adults). They tested their urine for six days on a conventional diet and then six days on an all organic diet. On the all organic diet the tested urine showed a 70% reduction of Glyphosate and its break-down products. Those reductions were achieved after just three days on an organic diet.
Further, while a majority of the Glyphosate we consume will leave our bodies within five to seven days; a smaller amount remains in our bone and bone marrow, to be emitted more slowly. Thus, it seems imperative to reduce our exposure to Glyphosate as much as possible, and to do that, we should eat Organic.
Conclusion
I initially thought that making the case for organic would be easy. In my mind pesticides were bad and there couldn’t be anyone that supported a chemical like Glyphosate knowing how dangerous it is, except of course the makers of it. But after hundreds of hours spent reading posts, watching videos and studying reports, I have come to the conclusion that the answers are anything but easy.
Our world has a lot of big problems, and very few real problem-solvers. I believe one reason for this is that people allow themselves to be distracted by things that won’t made a difference in order to “take a side”. We’re so consumed by this actually, that we are stuck in a state of conflict.
How do you get out of conflict? One side has to win, one side has to give in, or you reach a resolution that both sides can live with.
How does this relate to the issue of organic produce?
On one side are the proponents of Organic food. This side is concerned about their food being clean and pesticide free. They are health conscious and desire to feel good. Their view is that Glyphosate is harmful.
On the other side are the opponents to Organic farming. Their argument is that they are concerned with feeding the world and trying to do it without chemicals is a daunting and impossible task. It may be easy to say “eat organic, it’s healthier”, but it’s not as easy to implement when striving for abundance. Further, the proponents of Glyphosate believe it to be safe.
Moreover, Organic food is simply more expensive when you purchase it at the store. So to say something like, “eating organic is the only way” and accompany it with fear-mongering tactics means that families that can’t afford Organic food may avoid providing their children with the daily requirements of FV servings. While I have found that Organic produce purchased from a local farmer is more cost efficient, I recognize that not everyone has access to a local farmer.
However, this article isn’t about how to feed the world. It’s not about how a farmer can produce the necessary volume without the use of chemicals. It’s also not about what pesticides may be doing to our soil or whether Organic farming is causing its own set of problems in nature. Moreover, it’s not about the economics of Organic farming or whether families who can’t afford Organic stop nourishing their children.
As I told you at the beginning, I am not here to settle an argument.
I am here to discover the truth, whether that truth implicates social policies, or makes an entire industry more problematic. For it is only with the truth that we can begin to solve the problem.
“
Col Jessep: I’ll answer the question. You want answers?
LTJG Kaffee: I think I’m entitled to them.
Col Jessep: You want answers?!
LTJG Kaffee: I want the truth!
Col Jessep: You can’t handle the truth!”
A Few Good Men
The above is one of my favorite scenes in a movie. We all knew Jessep was guilty, and we really wanted Kaffee to pull it out of him.
Similarly, we all know Glyphosate is bad. I imagine even most of the Glyphosate supporters know it’s not good to consume it. But, sometimes people don’t want the truth so they can continue on with the status quo because of the problems that would arise if they couldn’t.
“You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall — you need me on that wall.”
A Few Good Men
In the movie we learned that Jessep’s truth was different from what was right. Similarly, in my journey through Organics, I have found this to be right:
- Pesticides, especially Glyphosate, are harmful to health.
- Our government is not testing for all the chemicals that remain on food that enters our food system.
- The truth is that the EPA has continued to issue a registration for a chemical known to cause severe harm.
- The standards used by the EPA are outdated because even trace amounts of pesticides are harmful to our health.
We can no longer ignore the problems. The only way to fix problems is through awareness. The only way to protect ourselves is to know the truth and make decisions about what is right. We must do this even if those decisions are difficult, and will change everything.
“Ignorance is weakness.”
Thomas Jefferson
I was born in a world where Glyphosate didn’t exist. The question, “how do we feed the world” was a real conundrum at that time as well. Then Glyphosate was introduced and Monsanto and companies like it made people believe that we can’t live without it. They made farmers believe that the only way to produce is with chemicals. But is that the truth? Could we possibly come to the table with a different question:
"How can we make food safer without using harmful chemicals while increasing crop yield that results in greater profits for farmers while keeping prices to consumers affordable?"
That’s the question Monsanto and companies like it don’t want asked. Because when you can make safe and abundant food without chemicals, the profits stay with the farmers, not the chemical companies.
The question about how we can make food safer without using chemicals is the only thing a united government of the people should be trying to solve. A world with less chemicals benefits those that grow our food, as much as it benefits the people of the world, and even the world itself.
Throughout this journey to discover the truth about our food I have come to believe that the best food is that grown without pesticides. I found no support for the allegations that Glyphosate is safe. When I read those allegations I think back on how in 1978 Jim Jones convinced 900 people to drink the Kool-Aid laced with cyanide. Most of Jones’ followers had no idea the poison was in the drink, but some did. They trusted him implicitly. I wonder if they had risen up together they could have changed their trajectory? Or had the years of Jones telling them there was no other way turned them into zombies?
Another reason why awareness is so important is to protect ourselves. I also believe that we shouldn’t stop eating fruits and vegetables even when we can’t get Organic. Instead, we can thoroughly clean our produce before we eat it to reduce our exposure to pesticides. I typically use a solution of water, white vinegar and baking soda.
In addition to the fact that pesticide free food is better, I have a personal reason why it’s so important to me. As I told you, I strongly believe in eating to thrive. Quite honestly, I just don’t feel good about eating bad food. If I don’t love it, why eat it? It won’t bring me joy. Instead, I’ll constantly worry that what I am eating will harm me. There’s nothing better than to love your food and know it is helping you, not harming you.
This article is intended to bring awareness to issues to provoke thought, and perhaps, action. As Thomas Jefferson said, “knowledge is power, knowledge is safety, knowledge is happiness”.
Disclaimer: This article reflects the opinions of the author. Nobody has paid the author for her opinions and she has accepted no bribes to form them. Feel free to do your own research—the sources are plentiful. In fact, write a paper and share it with us! If you want to spark healthy debate, leave a comment. (No bullies allowed).
