Organic food not better for you, just taking your $$$(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Organic food not better for you, just taking your $$$
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss
6 comments
No more nutritious. Which isn't what organic food was ever supposed to be. The "organic" label is, and always has been, about pesticides. Consumers tend to get confused and think that organic food must be generally better, and I'm sure agricultural companies don't mind that misconception, but this study shouldn't surprise anyone who does their homework.
the study does not address the effects of higher amounts of pesticide on non organic food, which is more frequently the cause of switching to organic than higher nutritional values. an apple has an apple's worth of better for you in it, but an organic apple has less exposure to chemical pesticides. the issue of how beneficial industrial pesticides are is being obscured by this article quite effectively.
perhaps chemical companies view organic as a bug, not a feature.
perhaps chemical companies view organic as a bug, not a feature.
I wonder who has paid for that, In the US there is no thing as objective fact, only paid fact.
Not to bash the US, it's just the rules of the game there, nobody in the US is to be trusted with things like opinion.
From the article: "The researchers did not use any outside financing for their research. 'I really wanted us to have no perception of bias,' Dr. Bravata said."
[deleted]