Slashdot Mirror
Stanford Study Flawed: Organic Produce May Be More Nutritious After All
assertation writes "A few weeks ago an article was posted to Slashdot referring to a Stanford Study stating that organic produce, contrary to popular belief is not more nutritious. According to Mark Bitman of The New York times the Stanford study was flawed. A spelling error skewed the results as well as the study ignoring several types of nutrients."
If you read TFA you would have understood why the study was flawed, and you don't have to be an expert (which he isn't) to understand why it is.
You are using the false justification that only an expert can accurately comment on matters. Even a layperson can see an obvious flaw and does not need qualifications to be correct. Honestly given what you wrote, I'm not sure you even read the article, which makes it all the more interesting that you made a point of claiming you did in your topic.
I have to ask, is this another one of those pro-Monsanto shill accounts? There's a lot of them.
1) okay. You still could take large quantities of the stuff according to the EPA, an adult should be able to take ~100ml of the stuff. Whereas 1 nanogram of Claviceps_purpurea is a surefire death sentence, and that amount of course, is very easy to miss. It's also guaranteed not to be on grain, except of course, organic grain.
2) "and most grain is tested for this sort of thing" true. Guess which grain is not, in fact, tested. Granted, the situation is improving. If you go "true" organic, buying at the farm or farmer's market, of course you're buying untested grain.
3) chickens are environmental disasters, and goats are environmental catastrophies. Large animals are not bad for the environment, but require large farmlands and labor.
Exactly. This paper hasn't been retracted. If there are real problems with the paper, there will be corrections or retractions published in peer reviewed journals. Don't take some blowhard from the NYT's word for it.
Not that we can expect people to actually pay attention to the science. People prefer their own confirmation bias to reality. e.g. a similar metaanalysis was done on the effectivness of SSRIs in 2008. It found that SSRIs were only clinically significant in the most severely depressed patients. Yet here we are 4 years later, and SSRIs are still handed out like candy.
Nobody is interested in what's real and what's not. They're only interested in what makes them feel good and what gets them money.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Plants are capable of making everything they/we need given proper nutrition.
Organic produce is just BS marketing. Go read up on what is considered 'organic' by USDA standards.
Yep, nothing about carbon-chemistry there.
Organics is a sham with the exception of real organic chemistry.
The more nutritious 'organic' foods are really less-modified cultivars rather than production/shelf life/mechanical-harvesting cultivars. This has been the case with every 'organic' farmer I've come across in my travels from UK to China.
It doesn't take a major study to figure this out. Just open your eyes and talk to people.
Signed,
Your friendly(ish) horticultural researcher
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.