Health-food advocates are up in arms after a new comprehensive British study concluded that organic food isn't more nutritious than conventionally grown food. Many say it's not so much about what's in the food; it's about what isn't. Full Story »
Posted by Dwight Rousu - via Seattle Times
Having read the the study, the article acurately reflects the very narrow scope of the study whether organic or other foods had significantly different nutritional value, not whether one was superior to the other in any other way.
We should not forget that both nightshade and death cap mushrooms are normally 100% organic and natural, but both will kill you. Nutritional value is only one factor in chosing what you put in your body, levels of poisons both organic and man made should be way up there, organic spinich grown in soil containing high levels of naturally occurring arsenic, with populations of feral hogs in the vacinity could be much more deadly than the stuff from a factory farm. Buyer beware no one ... More »
O'Hagan gets the key point early in the article, but then gets into he-said, she-said instead of clearly expanding on the key point. A good topic on a misleading study.
What is not in organic food (or shouldn't be) are pestiside residues, trace heavy metals from commercial fertilizers, herbicide residues, and genes from GMOs that have not ever been tested for food safety. Inverting the British study, it would seem to support that organic foods have similar nutrients to non-organic foods. Add that to the lack of pollutants, and it could be a positive.
Retrieving Comments
