Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt …
When we began this project, we thought that there would likely be some findings that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food,” said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy and the senior author of the paper, which appears in Tuesday’s issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. “I think we were definitely surprised.”
I’ve always been ahead of the curve.
(h/t Rizwan)
Conventional fruits and vegetables did have more pesticide residue, but the levels were almost always under the allowed safety limits, the scientists said.
pesticied residue? almost always under safe limits?
the way I see it, if organic was not more expensive, it would have a slight edge over conventional
The New York Times called it a polemic, not me. You can’t really be serious that Food Inc. is the definitive documentary on modern ag.
nold >
Like how would you know?
What do you know?
Are you seriously still here?
The study reported in the New York Times is just junk science. The people who did the study and who funded the study all have links to the industry. This is not objective science but science with a slant. I find it fascinating that Kate doesn’t believe anything the scientists tell her about climate change but she believes everything they say about her food. The dissonance is overwhelming and maybe, just maybe show that even people on the right, like Kate, are not as objective as they like to think. Just like others, they all have an axe to grind … Just saying.
RAS >
I get a kick out of the New York Times the rag of leftist propaganda referenced as the go-to authority a couple of times on this thread.
Everything that comes out of the New York Times should be regarded as suspect as they are equivalent to the CBC. Obama sends a tingle up their collective legs and Al Gore is a hero in their eyes. A waste of time unless you really lean left.