11-26-2013, 07:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by MarkP Perhaps the tables above were based on cherry-picked data where the organic produce was from a highly fertile area and non-organics were from a really hard-scrabble area.
Cherry-picking small-scale studies that may or may not even be statistically valid is a key tool of the pseudo-science activism that the whole alt.med and scary.food community feeds itself on.
I don't have time to stop and dig it up right now, but maybe you can look it up... there was a very credible analysis done recently of organic vs conventional produce, which showed no nutritional advantage to organics at all. What difference there was, and admittedly it is an important difference, is that organics had lower levels of residual pesticides.
But the claims that conventional crops, and especially GMO crops, somehow have lower nutritional content is just wishful thinking, with no credible scientific proof.
Why would they? As Dr. Gonsalves said... "It was a papaya before we did our work, and it's still a papaya afterwards."