Thursday, August 13, 2009
A difference in opinion or a difference in objective? I found this report on one of the WebMD emails sent to me routinely. It starts out with "Organically grown food is no more nutritious than conventionally grown food when it comes to the amount of certain important nutrients..." A review of 55 studies over the last 50 years was conducted by a public health nutritionist and he has concluded that there was no differences in several nutrient categories.
The article speaks also of the opposing view. A senior scientist stated that the older studies are in error. He believes that the new studies are more accurate. A chief scientist representing a center for organic produce also disagrees.
The former opinion, that there is little difference in the nutrient levels, was based in the UK. The later opinions, that there is a significant difference in the nutrient levels, was based in the USA. I will not judge whether one nation has a better methodology; however, I must wonder at the comment "...that's the reason that millions of American consumers are paying a premium price for organic production." That all three of the scientists that oppose the findings of the UK are Organic based entities coupled with that one statement causes great doubt in my mind.
We already know that in the USA studies are slanted, weighted, underwritten by industries with a commercial interest in the results coming out in their favor. My question: is this report about a difference in scientific methodology? Or is it a difference in objective? Are millions of Americans paying a premium price for organic production believing that they are gaining nutrients where the only thing that is getting healthier is the organic industries bank account?
My personal opinion is that it is sad where a soul cannot trust a science to serve the greater good and be in pursuit of truth. I am interested in haering the personal opinions of others.