More Nutrients, Less Nutrients vs More Chemicals, Less Chemicals

An article on a local news paper says that organic vegetables do not add more nutrients to the daily diet, than "traditionally cultivated" vegetables. The greens against the chemicals. Then, organic vegetables are 60% more expensive than "traditional" vegetables. Now, as you all know, I'm not an expert on the matter of biology, or biogenetics or agriculture in general. Hell, usually my closer encounter with vegetables is in Subway, but I do know this: and organic tomato and a chemically showered tomato may have the same amount of nutrients, but the organic tomato do not have the amount of chemicals that the "traditional tomato" has.

First of all, since when "traditional agriculture" includes chemicals? Shouldn't that be called "industrialized agriculture"? And second of all, what's that bull about concentration on the same levels of nutrients, when that has never been the point in the first place, and leave out of the question the level of poison in the veggies? Yes, evidently, it's a partialized newspaper that serves the interests of a small oligarch group in this country, so this doesn't really surprise me... only the amazing level of shamelessness they are capable of displaying.

Maybe the crisis is making us think twice before we spend, but when it comes to veggies, sorry, we are not going to pick the chemical-filled because "it has the same nutrients", but I may go to the local fairs and marketplaces, where the farmers sell their stuff... much cheaper. It's not only a matter of "how much am I willing to pay for my veggies", but whether I like my veggies poisoned or poison free.

I like them poison free.