The meta-analysis cited at the beginning of this article has problems. But even if it didn&#x27;t, you only need to read the conclusion to know the headline writers are getting this wrong.<p>As alluded to in that conclusion, the study isn&#x27;t so much a comparison of organic vs. conventional as it is a comparison of grass fed vs. grain fed animals. The article does refer to this in passing and then continues along.<p>And it is odd to tout the increase in omega-3s anyway. &quot;Yay, we raised the omega-3s  found in beef from a tiny-amount to a statistically-interstingly-higher-but-still-tiny-amount.&quot;<p>Going on to the next study cited in the article doesn&#x27;t help it. Note how the article shifts from saying that the compounds are potentially beneficial over to saying they are. And then it ignores the evidence mounting that maybe all of our hopes that lots of dietary antioxidants would help us live longer&#x2F;better may have been sadly misplaced.<p>Bah...I hate the state of health news reporting.