you dodge the groups of frantic shoppers and come to a halt in the colorful produce section. you reach down to grasp a carton of cherries but you notice that the cherries you grabbed are $4.75 and there’s a stack of cartons to your right that are only $3.75. they look the same, they both smell fine, so why should i pay more for my cherries?

organic food assumptions fueled by marketing are that the cherries in my hand are more nutritious, safer, and healthier for me since organic farming is better for the environment.

is this the truth?

foods with the usda organic seal are grown and processed following a set of regulations and there’s no question that keeping farmland free of pesticides is better for the environment.

but herbicides freed farmers from tilling the soil which requires more labor and disrupts the soil’s natural ecosystem – recognized as a cause of the dust bowl.

how does the usda organic labeling work? what is the carbon footprint transporting organic cherries from washington state to washington, d.c.? does it make food taste better?

let’s break it down and debunk 5 myths about organic food to make your grocery store choices easier.

1. organic fruit is always healthier for you.

it turns out, the more expensive cherries that i chose is the healthier choice. conventional fruit that you can eat with peeling off skin including strawberries, raspberries and cherries could possibly contain residues from pesticides and chemicals sprayed on the crops.

but.

fruits like oranges, bananas, pineapple and kiwi among other fruits have a layer of skin or peel that protects the edible inside of the fruit. if they are sprayed with pesticides, only the outside layer will be directly affected.

according to usda statistics, annual spending on organic food and drinks has jumped from about $1 billion to $28 billion in the past 20 years.

in a recent study by pew research center, 76% say of u.s. adults who bought organic food in the past month say they were looking to eat healthier. only 33% say they bought organic food to help the environment and 22% of people say it’s for convenience.

the larger portion of americans believe it is healthier since organic foods have higher levels of antioxidants. but having more antioxidants does not say there is a significant difference between the nutritional boost of organic foods compared to those who eat conventionally grown foods.

it is important to note that the health benefits of organic food can vary by context. for example, in low-income countries, micronutrient differences matter more, whereas in high-income countries, we care more about how many antioxidants and vitamins it contains.

another surprising statistic is that a whopping 72% of adult americans say their choice in buying organic food depends on the price in comparison.

so my advice is to choose wisely. you may not need to spend the extra $1.50 on your organic bananas on top of your morning oatmeal.

2. organic food is better for the environment.

just because food is organic, doesn’t mean its production and distribution are necessarily good for the environment.

consider a can of organic black beans from bolivia or a bag of organic rice from china. transporting such products to your neighborhood grocery store creates a carbon footprint much bigger than transporting locally grown products.

although organic farming requires a much more time consuming, labor inducing process for farmers — contributing to its higher price in your grocery store — the food and agriculture organization of the united nations says there are key environmental benefits to organic agriculture.

3. products labeled “organic” are completely free of all pesticides.

usda certified organic foods are grown and processed according to federal guidelines and relying on natural substances for farming methods. it can be certified as organic if it has been grown on soil that has had no prohibited substances like synthetic fertilizers and pesticides for three years prior to harvest.

according to a blog written by the national organic program deputy administrator, when packaged products are “made with organic,” it means

they contain at least 70% of organic ingredients. these products will not have the usda organic seal, but must identify with a usda certifier.

in addition, only 95% of food must be organic to be labeled as so. so that means, there may still be pesticides and chemicals present in your cereal.

4. organic produce tastes better.

about 59% majority of american adults say that organic and conventionally grown produce taste about the same. the rest of americans who say it tastes better, buy and eat more organic foods.

so does public opinion reflect the science?

according to a study conducted by sciences advances, there is a gray area in which some found a significant difference in nutrient content between organic and conventional crops, but other did not.

these disagreements could be because of differences in food components, whether the nutrient content was measured on dry or wet matter and produce freshness, how it has been transported and inspected for any decay or rottenness.

not only that, one person could have different opinions on how one organic tastes in comparison to conventionally grown apple.

there are too many context-based factors to determine whether organic produce does in fact taste better, which is why we believe it usually tastes about the same.

5. products labeled “organic” are inspected to guarantee their authenticity.

the usda claims that, all organic farming methods must, “integrate cultural, biological and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance and conserve biodiversity. synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation and genetic engineering may not be used.”

farms are held to these methodological guidelines and may be inspected. but realistically, every apple in the grocery store cannot be inspected to make the distinction between conventional or organic, especially if it isn’t labeled with a small, yellow sticker that says, “from an organic farm.”

it’s no secret meat isn’t the most eco-friendly food to pile on your plate. globally, the meat industry emits an estimated 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions, and is considered a leading contributor to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution. additionally, animal agriculture accounts for more land use than any other food source, and ushers overuse of hormones, and antibiotics, which leach into our water and food systems.

and although many of us are already aware of the unsustainability of meat, humans still have quite the appetite for meat, which has climbed in recent years, and is projected to peak in 2018.

…which governments have subsidized

the global explosion of enthusiastic meat consumption has to do with a variety of factors, including increases in disposable income, and the heavy subsidization of the industry in many parts of the world, including the united states.

and while it’s often easy to point at meat as a source of environmental and health issues, it is worth noting that meat can be a valuable source of energy, protein, amino acids, and essential micronutrients, including iron and b12, all of which are important in preventing many global malnutrition-related conditions, including protein-energy deficits and anemia.

still, it’s hard to justify pouring billions into a food source that is contributing so greatly to climate change when there are an estimated 815 million hungry people on earth.

we can’t address global food insecurity without creating a more sustainable food system. and one of the biggest areas of opportunity for improvement lies in our ability to cut down on meat production.

how we shift our funding towards a sustainable, food secure future:

many high and low-tech alternatives exist as promising solutions, but many remain underappreciated or underfunded. by redirecting global animal agriculture subsidies, there is great opportunity for impact.

which next begs the question, where do these funds go? we can begin to subsidize more eco-friendly alternatives, but considering the global diversity in palates, cultures, landscapes, and infrastructures, we need more than a one-size-fits all approach.

it’s overly optimistic to expect steak-lovers to willingly swap beans for beef, and plain unrealistic to suggest high-tech meat startups are the solution in countries that lack the proper infrastructure.

so, here are 5 animal agriculture-free, protein alternatives to shift our animal agriculture funding into:

1. subsidize research and production of meat made from plants:

meat, technically speaking, is a composition of water, proteins, amino acids, minerals, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and small amounts of carbohydrates. all of these building blocks can be found or fostered in plants.

several protein-alternative startups are building brands on this principle. by piecing together building blocks of meat from plant-foods, and processing them together with new technology, they are able to create meat alternatives that smell, taste, feel, and cook just like meat.

by offering “meat made from plants” to appease the carnivore palate, companies like beyond meat and impossible foods are a wiser way to channel animal subsidy dollars, and offer an appealing, yet sustainable meat choice for meat-lovers in many parts of the world. subsidizing such technologies (as leonardo dicaprio already has) could ensure products continue to improve and decrease in price, giving meat-lovers a meat with lesser harm to the environment.

2. subsidize research and production of lab-grown meat

for those looking for another alternative that comes from animals rather than plants, several start up companies are working to bring lab-grown meat to market. companies like mosa meat and just foods, are pioneering lab-grown meat.

mosa meat products, for example, are made from small samples of muscle stem cells taken from real animals. known as “myosatellite” cells, these cells serve the specific function of creating new muscle tissue upon injury. cells are next placed in a medium of nutrients and growth factors, cultivating their growth. strands of cells are then layered together to create real meat – the only difference being that theirs is grown outside – rather than inside – the animal.

rather than devote land, water, and feed grains to grow and butcher livestock, lab-grown meat requires far fewer resources, and emits far fewer greenhouse gases.  

by shifting government funds from land and feed-requiring meats to lab-grown meat, die-hard carnivores can rest assured their steaks aren’t soon to be replaced with tofu. subsidizing these technologies can ensure their affordability and continual improvement.

3. subsidize edible insect agriculture

insects hold great promise as a sustainable source of animal protein. requiring far less land, water, and producing far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than most mammalian protein sources, insects are a highly nutritious food source that is often overlooked. while edible insect nutrient profiles vary by species, many are micronutrient rich in vitamins and minerals including zinc, calcium, and iron, which are often lacking from diets of malnourished people.

some are even energy dense, which could combat protein and energy deficiencies. additionally, insects have low technological and monetary start-up costs, and are a viable option in developing countries where resources are limited. insects are a wise and low-cost subsidy option which could address hunger far and wide.

4. subsidize algae production

algae is another fast-growing, high quality, and underappreciated source of protein. importantly, algae is one of the few plant-based sources of b12, which is essential for proper neurological function and prevention of anemia. furthermore, there are a lot of algae strains around the world, and cultivating algae does not require arable land, and can be done in many water environments including marshes, swamps, hot springs, and even under ice, and can also be grown in a lab, offering a promising, scalable option in many parts of the world.

5. subsidize organic – or any – produce alternatives

fruits, vegetables, and legumes (besides soy) are drastically under-supported by government entities compared to staple grains and animal feed. although developed nations often tout fruits and vegetables as essential to a healthful diet, many channel far more funding into meat, animal, and grains like corn and wheat.

by subsidizing fruits and vegetables, people will be better-able to afford these nutrient-dense food choices, and have a better chance at avoiding micronutrient deficiencies. and although not a large source of protein per se, most plant-foods have at least some traces of protein, all of which add up and can contribute to protein and energy intake.

how to move forward:

there are many more sustainable ways to direct worldwide subsidies currently supporting animal agriculture. to solve global hunger, we need a global, cooperative approach to create sustainable food choices with minimal environmental impacts. if developed and developing countries refocus their protein investments, this vision is possible.

and while politically-willed hypotheticals sometimes seem like far-off solutions, there are still things we as citizens can do to nurture these changes. from selecting to spending our dollars on sustainable protein alternatives, educating ourselves and others on the reality of our global food system, and showing up with our political voice in support of institutional change, together we can empower a more food secure future.

cliff’s notes:

but first — as my stomach reminded me, grumbling in hunger — breakfast. after an employee directed me to the restaurant, filled with a buffet of local foods, i perused the offerings and, oddly, skipped over my go-to favorite (carbs), because something else caught my eye: fruit.

neatly arranged on silver platters in the middle of the buffet were fruits ranging from bright red watermelon to blood orange papayas to yellow honeydew, and all met my gaze as i crept around the fruit table like a jaguar circling its prey.

i paused. “since when have i ever been this intrigued by fruit?” i thought.

keeping an open mind, i stacked my plate with as much fruit as it could hold and walked over to a table, careful not to drop anything from my overflowing plate on the floor.

“the pineapple,” i thought as i sat down. “i’ll try this first.”

my knife cut like butter through the slice of pineapple and i took a bite.  

i stopped chewing for a second. my eyes widened as the perfect, almost candylike sweetness of the pineapple struck my taste buds. it was the best damn pineapple i’d ever had. immediately i knew i could never go back to its american cousin; it doesn’t hold a candle to brazilian pineapple.

as i savored these fruits, i pondered: why is the fruit in brazil so good, and where does it come from? i knew i would have to do some research to learn more.

conveniently, i learned, my trip to brazil took me right to the source: the amazon rainforest. the rainforest, which is as big as the continental united states, harbors more than 10% of the world’s species and is home to 350 ethnic groups.

the rainforest also serves as a feeding ground for both humans and animals through its fruit production. boasting vast agricultural diversity, the amazon rainforest is the source of least 3,000 fruits, while only about 200 of those are consumed in the western world. it is home to fruits ranging from figs and lemons to bananas and guavas, the amazon provides the state of amazonas — and much of the world — with fruits created by mother nature herself.

josé luís camargo, a brazilian plant ecologist, researcher, and teacher who accompanied us on the trip to the amazon, said the fruits from the rainforest are among the most unique in the world. certain fruits like açaí — a highly nutritious purple berry — are special to the rainforest and are popular in not just brazil, but other parts of the world, including america.

“more of the local fruits are rich — very rich,” camargo said. “what happens for most of the people who live outside the amazon — most of the fruits you don’t find other places. only here.”

vegetables, however, are not as popular. camargo said there are some common vegetables used in meals, but joked that not a lot of brazilians eat “leaves” like americans do.

“vegetables are not a thing — it depends on the vegetables. some of them are very common, like tomate (tomato) … part of the regular food here doesn’t go with salad.”

being the third largest exporter of fruit, behind china and india, respectively, brazil also showcases the diversity of its fruits. from açaí, camu camu (a vitamin c-packed so-called “superfood”) to maracuyá (passionfruit) and aguaje (which has a high concentration of vitamin a, as well as vitamins e and c), brazil produces exotic fruits that make even the biggest foodies marvel at the uniqueness of the sweet delectables — and the nutritional impact they can provide both locals and consumers in other countries.

over the past several years, the fruit industry in brazil has risen 25%, dominating the country’s export economy, and provided 5.6 million jobs. about 35% of the world’s oranges come from brazil and more than half of the world’s orange juice is made there, too. in 2013, 14,598 tons of oranges were exported by brazil, serving countries like the united states, germany, uruguay, france and more.

beyond the economic and nutritional impact, camargo said the fruit is a big part of what makes the amazon special.

it’s what gives camargo a sense of home — no matter where he travels in brazil. for others in the city of manaus, it’s how they make a living — selling fruits in small shacks outside, under the blaze of the brazilian sun. for me? the fruit created a sense of comunidade.

“community” in portuguese, comunidade is what i felt as i turned every corner in brazil. i felt it from its people, its music, and, yes, its fruit.

in fact, it was the fruit that brought all of us together during our time at camp 41 — the home base for a series of scientific studies done deep in the amazon.

with no technology embedded in our hands — and little knowledge about each other — our gatherings at the seemingly out of place, red-checkered tablecloth-clad picnic tables in the middle of the rainforest, nibbling on the sweetest of fruits that came from the rainforest made me simply happy. it’s the comunidade that moves the planet forward.

while others marveled at the abundance of insect and animal life in the rainforest, i marveled at the fruit. the fruit was pure — it came from the heart of the amazon to the table. no factories involved. no planes. just forest to table.

rather than treating this illness caused by diet with a pill, the innovative fruit and vegetable prescription program chooses to treat it at its root cause – the diet.

doctors prescribe their patients $1 per day per family member to spend on fruits and vegetables at farmers markets, or rather, farmacies. that’s over $100 per month for a family of four to spend on produce instead of pills.

patients participate in nutrition and exercise classes where they learn how to lead a healthy lifestyle, and are given the means to do so. a prescription for an apple a day keeps the sickness away.

story and video by annabel epstein and aishvarya kavi.

blue skys farm is chemical free and keeps a low carbon footprint by selling the food in a close proximity to the farm. by selling the food so close to home the flavor is being preserved and they expend a minimal amount of fossil fuels. dedora believes that local farmers are crucial to small local economy, due to the importance of keeping local dollars locally spent. food + innovation = local farming, in that an innovating way to incorporate sustainable food into the local community is to turn to local farmers. not only do they need the support, but they are working to benefit the local consumer, and the food is freshest when it is right in your backyard.