Comments on: Organic food fight

By: Deborah

Deborah — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:43:35 +0000

It all comes down to taste for me. Dairy and Eggs no question, they taste better. On fruit and veg I find that organic berries and peppers taste better, but can’t detect a difference with the rest. Free-range and organic chicken taste the same to me, but both heads and tails above battery.

By: Steve K

Steve K — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:39:45 +0000

…for example, for every theory of relativity there’s a thousand theories of cold fusion…

By: Steve K

Steve K — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:38:31 +0000

Conor, maybe I explained myself incorrectly. It’s just that if a study goes strongly against the accepted body of science it is usually incorrect, that’s not to say we should discount it, just that it is worthy of our deepest scepticism.

By: Conor

Conor — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:04:44 +0000

Steve, the Newcastle study has not yet been peer reviewed but it is planned to have all the findings comprehensively assessed by independent arbiters in the coming months so it would probably be better to hold off on any definitive comment as to its merits or
otherwise until that happens. I will say, however that just because the early findings disagree with the general body of science does not mean it should be automatically rejected, as many scientists seem keen to do. The “general body of science” has been wrong in the past, hasn’t it?

And Justin, I get an organic box too – from a company called Absolutely Organic – and it’s deadly, if a bit too parsnip heavy betimes!

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:33:46 +0000

I must write up a plug for taint.org about the organic box we get delivered to our house every week from Be Organic — they’re brilliant.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:10:53 +0000

I think Dr Flynn’s point is valid as that study has yet to be published, so we can’t really rely on it yet. Also according to reports the study finds benefits only in relation to certain types of organic food.

Hopefully the study shall be published soon as it certainly appears to be the most comprehensive yet.

By: Steve K

Steve K — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:48:58 +0000

Conor the nutritionist’s assertion conflicts with one, non-peer reviewed study from Newcastle, but agrees with the general body of science.

As Shane & Ben Goldacre regularly point out with relation to media coverage of science, one study is just that, a study. It is almost always inconsequential next the the whole body of scientific evidence, and if it makes a claim that counters that evidence, it is most usually incorrect.

Point being, don’t muddy the waters with an (as of yet) unproven study - which from your report is highly uncontrolled and subject to about a gazillion external factors.