You knew this, but there's a recent literature review from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine that provides evidence that this $48B/year industry offers no benefits.
Does anyone think that will stop people who want to believe? (And they say Young Earth Creationists are nuts?) I would like to see the numbers on how many people who believe this also voted for Democrats in the "Reality-Based Community."
4 comments:
Science student can learn a lot from this news item. Throughout your scientific career you will learn that any results that are produced can be slanted and biased one way or the other. This is why it is important to approach a science fair project objectively and without preconceived notions of what your results will be.
that is the best piece of comment spam ever
I thought people bought organic to avoid pesticides, and pollutants being added to the soil, not because it was supposed to be more nutritious.
I buy nothing organic....way too expensive. My blood is probably full of nice chemicals.
AVI, I'm surprised at you. Organic food is fashionable, au courant, and marks you as a member of the upper middle class (or, the A&H Tribe). It offers plenty of benefits.
They're just not health benefits.
(In fairness, "organic" can often be used as a proxy for "local", although this isn't as reliable as it used to be. Local produce is almost always fresher, and often farmers who sell into the local market can choose cultivars for flavor and texture rather than shelf-life. I'm not sure whether either of these things qualify as health benefits, per se, but they do make the food taste better. We get good California strawberries up here, but there is just no comparison to the local berries, and a lot of those are marked "organic" or "transitional".)
(On the other hand, the tomatoes and herbs I grow myself do not qualify as "organic", because I use Osmocote as well as chicken manure in their pots. Hmm.)
Post a Comment