My favorite blog blogger, Helen at Menu Pages Chicago steered me yesterday to an article in the Washington Post about the ongoing battle of local vs. organic foods.  The Post piece pretty much comes out on “my side”:

But locally produced food, organic or otherwise, addresses some of those same concerns. Since some nutrients may be diminished during shipping, locally farmed foods will probably retain more of their nutritive quality by the time they land in your shopping cart. And local farmers can select for flavor rather than choosing varieties that are hardy enough to survive long-distance shipping. What's more, locally grown food avoids the environmental impact of trans-continental shipping. And buying locally is good for your local economy.

The article's commentators push back, citing the rather classic New Zealand study comparing their product to a British industrial product as well as arguing for the standards imposed by an organic certification.

Me, I certainly want what organic is supposed to mean when it comes to chemicals, genetics, and animal husbandry, but I find too often that the products carrying such as label do not truly meet those standards.  See for example certain milk producers (or worse, certain spinach producers).  I find more often, it is not a question of one vs. the other as a question as which gets you what you want.  I find, nearly always, local gets me what I want better.

That said, there are times when I chose local over organic even when organic has certain intrinsic advantages.  This comes up mostly with local fruit, especially local apples, which are nearly always sprayed with non-organic chemicals.  While there are some guys in MI growing organic apples, the majority of local fruit is not organic.  I still go for local because of all the other local plus's; plus I guess I figure I have enough pure food in my system to off-set this bit of spray.

Where do you stand?