'Why Organic Is Better (Never Mind the Study)'

I had purchased the paper the day this story came out, but Instapundit linked it as well, "BUT IT’S SO TRENDY: Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce."

And boy, trendy is right.

Here's a response from the letters to the Times, with an emphasis on "Never Mind the Study":

To the Editor:

“Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce” (news article, Sept. 4) misses the point.

The first sentence suggests that people eat organic food with the hope of getting more vitamins per serving. I choose organic food because it contains fewer pesticides, and is grown more naturally.

Furthermore, the article contradicts the implications of the headline; it provides evidence that organic food contains fewer chemicals, and cites several examples that validate the reality that organic food is in fact healthier.

The fact that nonorganic food also contains pesticide levels below the standards of the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t indicate that organic and nonorganic foods are actually equally healthy.

Finally, the article acknowledges that this study ignores food’s taste, and doesn’t mention other factors, including support of independent farmers, healthier conditions for workers, biodiversity and reduced environmental degradation.

JOSH GRAY
Roxbury, Conn., Sept. 4, 2012

That's some truly snooty commentary without even the slightest mention of data to support the claims, and I've bolded the most important point, besides. I'm sure organic could taste ten times worse than cardboard and idiots like this would still be spouting such progressive nonsense.

There are more letters at the Times.

And see Jonathan Tobin's piece on this as well, "Broken Clock Alert: Organic, Schmorganic."