"“Boring Study Tells Us Exactly What We Already Knew About Organic Food.” I won’t bother to rehash the details, but if you haven’t read it, here and here are versions for your perusal.

As is the norm, journalists quickly turned to the experts for a rebuttal. I especially liked Michael Pollan’s instant analysis:

“I think we’re kind of erecting a straw man and then knocking it down, the straw man being that the whole point of organic food is that it’s more nutritious. The whole point of organic food is that it’s more environmentally sustainable. That’s the stronger and easier case to make. (see full interview here.)

The L. A. Times editorial page also weighed in, noting:

“What’s most glaring about the Stanford review is what’s missing from it, which is any examination of processed foods. You can’t get a realistic picture of health effects by looking at fruits, veggies and meats but none of the processed items that make up the bulk of the American diet. (see full editorial here).

As much as I appreciated both of these responses, I found myself wondering: why is it that journalists immediately reached out to other journalists for a response, instead of asking organic farmers what they thought about the study?"

READ ON HERE...

This post submitted by:

First Name: Forrest
Last Name: Pritchard
Vendor: Smith Meadows