A study just released by Stanford University scientists has found that organic foods—produce, meat and dairy—are no more nutritious than non-organic or conventional foods. The study also reports that they are no less likely to be contaminated. They’re probably right. They examined more than 40 years’ worth of research on the topic; the study used no outside funding to avoid any “perception of bias;” and, well, they’re scientists.

The problem with their research, as I see it, is that they asked the wrong question. No one has really seriously claimed that organic foods are more nutritious. And earlier studies on this very subject have already stated what the Stanford researchers were “surprised” to discover. To me, they missed the point. Their central question was kind of like asking if LED light bulbs are any quieter than conventional ones, or if fuel-efficient vehicles are any shinier than gas guzzlers. Continue reading “Organic vs. non-organic: A flawed Stanford study produces dangerous sound bites” →