Organic Is Best? Not If You Require Actual Evidence
Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 10:14
in Mathematics & Economics
New research in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture shows there is no evidence to support the argument that organic food is better than food grown with the use of pesticides and chemicals Many people pay more than a third more for organic food in the belief that it has more nutritional content than food grown with pesticides and chemicals. But the research by Dr Susanne Bügel and colleagues from the Department of Human Nutrition, University of Copenhagen, shows there is no clear evidence to back this up. Read More...
Read the whole article on Scientific Blogging
More from Scientific Blogging
Related
- No evidence to support 'organic is best'Thu, 7 Aug 2008, 10:21:42 EDT
- Organic food not nutritionally better than conventionally-produced foodWed, 29 Jul 2009, 11:32:24 EDT
- First evidence that weed killers improve nutritional value of a key food cropWed, 8 Jul 2009, 10:45:48 EDT
- New science review examines multiple health benefits of dairy foodsWed, 1 Jul 2009, 16:44:38 EDT
- Exposure to perfluorinated chemicals may reduce women's fertilityThu, 29 Jan 2009, 3:50:54 EST