FINALLY!! Some sensible comments about THAT organic food study. Yes, the one all those websites were posting and reposting and copying from one another about yesterday:
Whoa, slow down, internet and television news! Man, one document says organic food might not be worth the dollar and you’d think an organic vegetable had held up a bank.
The studies that the review looked at were small….Nutrients are only part of the equation…Highly quoted was that the conventional diet mostly fell within allowed limits for pesticides. Here’s what you should know: The EPA sets these limits…The review was inconclusive.
Read more from Good,
In their “Debunkary” section, io9 follows along NPR‘s footsteps and posts an article about how ORGANIC FOODS ARE NOT MORE NUTRITIOUS!! [ that’s me shouting to present my sarcastic shock and awe ]. They even claim that “A recent study suggests the $27 billion organic food industry is based on a myth.“
OK, ok. I get it. They need a shock headline to get people to click onto their page, see the Ads, click on Ads, make money, blah, blah, blah, etc.
But come on…I’m getting the feeling that these “bloggers” are getting paid by Monsanto.
In the article, they say [emphasis mine]:
But what the researchers did discover was that lower pesticide levels could be detected among children who ate organic foods compared to those on conventional diets. The researchers found that organic produce is 30% less likely to be contaminated with pesticides than conventional fruits and vegetables — but they cautioned that the differences in biomarkers and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults were not “clinically meaningful.”
But earlier in the article, they note [again emphasis mine]:
It’s important to note that, for the clinical trials, the researchers did not look into any long-term studies of health outcomes of people eating organic versus conventionally produced foods. At most, the duration of the trials ranged from two days to two years.
Trials that only ranged from two days to two years! What I would like to know, what none of the articles mention, is how many people took part in the studies. For all we know, it could have been 240 studies, with only two people to each study for a total of 480 test subjects – a low number to garner an meaningful data from.