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 weekwas 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 “counter-intuitive” information about organic food, it played right into the hands of the news hungry while conveniently obscuring important features of organic agriculture.
If I may play with metaphor for a moment, the study was like declaring guns no more dangerous than baseball bats when it comes to blunt-object head injuries. It was the equivalent of comparing milk and Elmer’s glue on the basis of whiteness. It did, in short, miss the point. Even Crystal Smith-Spangler, a Stanford co-author, perfectly captured the narrowness of the study when she said: “some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious. We were a little surprised that we didn’t find that.” That’s because they didn’t look — or even worse, they ignored.
Read the rest of Bittman's column here.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Whaddya mean organic food is not nutritionally superior?
When Mark Bittman realized that he could not ignore the recent study conducted by Standford University, he addressed the flaws in its methodology that made its conclusions jaw-dropping to all of us who buy organic food.