Sometimes I wonder about people.
Journalists, for example.
Researchers published a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which found that "found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron. The same was true for studies looking at meat, dairy and eggs."
The BBC ran an article about this report. It was titled "Organic Has No Health Benefits."
Excuse me? WTF?
In what universe is food that has been grown with pesticides considered the same as food that's grown without pesticides?
Look, journalists. "Organic" fruit and vegetables are grown with a minimal amount of pesticides. Pesticides are bad.
Pesticides can be endocrine disruptors. These are linked to reproductive cancers.
The New York Times ran an article on a common weed killer, atrazine. "Recent studies suggest that, even at concentrations meeting current federal standards, the chemical may be associated with birth defects, low birth weights and menstrual problems." [The link may require you to login. But it's free, and they don't send you spam -- at least, they don't send it to me. Maybe they just like me.]
So how can these journalists say organic food doesn't have any benefit?
I figure this calls for a graph.
Yes, I am taking the argument to an extreme by suggestion people who ingest potassium cyanide might just possibly not be doing a healthy thing. But it's no more absurd than judging organic food by the extremely narrow criterion of whether its nutritional value is vastly higher than regularly grown foods -- and completely ignoring the wee bit about pesticides being Not Nice.
I'd started this post awhile ago, then set it aside so it could 'mature.' (Unlike moi, who just gets older.) Thanks to reader versweet for reminding Crabby and me of how absurd these news articles can be!
Am I being too cranky here? Should I just shrug and go back to worrying about Global Warming or Scrabble or something like that?