That's great, but it would be better if they would make the food more accessible to the average person. In the markets near me, organic food is nearly double the price of inorganic. The average person shopping on a budget (ie. the majority of people) just can't afford that.

It is the same in the UK as well, but healthy things always lend themselves to making a profit! dont they?

I think you get more nutrition in the organic therefore you need less of it compared to big amounts of inorganic produce

Thanks

www.ziarezvi.com

tidbit2, I don't think they provide more calories or are more filling, they simply contain more of these flavanoids. So consumers would have to purchase the same amount.

:"Organic" can mean many different things. If you look at any food that calls itself organic, it can mean that it has no artificial ingredients, or that it was grown with only natural fertilizers, or that it was not grown using pesticides. There is no overreaching definition of organic food. Many things have been "certified organic" that some would say do not fit that definition.
So what kind of organic were these tomatoes?
BTW- to have "organic" produce available to the average person- you can plant them yourself. If you have no place for a garden, many communities have public garden plots.

In order to be labelled "organic" in the U.S., food has to meet a defined set of guidelines now overseen by the USDA. It's more expensive at least partly because of the fact that those guidelines preclude the use of a lot of things that make large-scale factory farming possible, such as petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides.