Stanford Study Flawed: Organic Produce May Be More Nutritious After All

Lets look at the meat of the article

In fact, the Stanford study ? actually a meta-study, an analysis of more than 200 existing studies ? does say that ?consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.?

Since that?s largely why people eat organic foods, what?s the big deal? Especially if we refer to common definitions of ?nutritious? and point out that, in general, nutritious food promotes health and good condition. How can something that reduces your exposure to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria not be ?more nutritious? than food that doesn?t?

Because the study narrowly defines ?nutritious? as containing more vitamins.

So his problem is the authors were dishonest because they didn't adhere to his incorrect definition of nutritious.

And near the end
Like too many studies, the Stanford study dangerously isolates a finding from its larger context

That's a feature, not a bug. The role of a research paper isn't to make some broad sweeping conclusion, it's to carefully explore a narrow question, were the organics more nutritious, and on that question the answer was no.

Source: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotScience/~3/tm5BkmxF6j4/stanford-study-flawed-organic-produce-may-be-more-nutritious-after-all

edwin jackson punksatony phil trump 2012 groundhog day groundhog phil pee wee herman ketamine