missing the point
This article in today’s US News and World Report is about how conventionally grown produce has the same nutrient value as that grown organically.
But read 50 words in and the article get weird, particularly in paragraph 6 where “conventionally grown” and “traditionally grown” are described as synonymous. Um.
The other crazy aspect of the report is this statement:
The review zeroed in on 162 studies that dealt with the nutrient content of foods. Only 55 were of what the researchers considered to be “satisfactory quality” — a strong indicator that, overall, the science on the subject is not up to snuff.
So why was this news, if only 34% of the reported study was considered scientifically viable, and when someone else asked these questions at the end?
“There are so many variables,” she said. “Where is something grown? Where is it shipped from? How long was it on the truck? There are going to be variables in terms of nutrition just from production methods.”
My guess is that soundbytes in the 24-hour news cycle make money, versus more complicated studies that don’t yield easy results or descriptions.