Organic Debate: That Flawed Stanford Study

[Jesse Hull]

I tried to ignore the month-old “Stanford study.” I really did. It made so little sense that I thought it would have little impact.

That was dumb of me, and I’m sorry.

The study, which suggested — incredibly — that there is no “strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods,” caused as great an uproar as anything that has happened, food-wise, this year. (By comparison, the Alzheimer’s/diabetes link I wrote about last week was ignored.)

That’s because headlines (and, of course, tweets) matter. The Stanford study was not only an exercise in misdirection, it was a headline generator. By providing “useful” and “counterintuitive” information about organic food, it played right into the hands of the news hungry while conveniently obscuring important features of organic agriculture...

Mark Bittman - NY Times

Continued at:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/that-flawed-stanfor...

[Roger]

Jesse - I personally don't believe organic foods offer additional nutrition; however, when eating organic I can go to bed every night knowing that I don't have harsh pesticides sprayed on what I'm eating.  That alone is enough to make me buy/eat organic when I can afford to do so.  I think it's also important to support vendors who can provide proof that they aren't selling genetically modified fruits and veggies.  Unfortunately this is much harder to do in the US.  We should learn about the danger of GM food from Europe and other countries which have banned its production.