Last month there was a great deal of media attention paid to a
study about organic food (Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier
Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review), which was
widely cited for concluding that "[there is no] evidence that
organic foods are significantly more nutritious than
conventional foods." But the study is more spin than significant
science. A critique of the study in the New York Times by
columnist and food writer Mark Bittman points out the weaknesses
and oversimplifications in the study that have been used to
"debunk" organic food based on criteria that are significantly
immaterial to the organic label. Bittman says of the study,
"[it] was like declaring guns no more dangerous than baseball
bats when it comes to blunt-object head injuries. It was the
equivalent of comparing milk and Elmer’s glue on the basis of
whiteness. It did, in short, miss the point." The other half of
the conclusion of the study, "Consumption of organic foods may
reduce exposure to pesticide residu