Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
The problem with the term "organic" is it's broad and not well defined. It's like "agile" in our space.There are some standards varying by country some government enforced some not, and those standards have changed over time. This data seems to encompass data from many countries over a long period of time. This means how something is classified in the organic bin or not in highly inconsistent in the data set.The paper seems thin on how they classified the data as organic or not, looks like they took that source data's word for it.I am very skeptical anytime someone uses such vague terminology such as organic. Most compounds considered "synthetic" are technically organic in a chemical sense. When does something become synthetic? After all many forms chemical synthesis involves basic forms of human preparation (mechanical separation and cooking). How much human modification of a raw material crosses the line into syntheses? Manure vs compost vs fertilizer. The distinction varies by country/law/standard/organization/person.For instance the paper says they included "biodynamic" techniques as organic. Never heard of this before, looking into it it seems akin alchemy, mixing spirituality with farming protocols.The "natural" vs standard medicine debate overlaps in many way with this issue and is full of pseudoscience that pervades and pollutes the information available.