"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
songbird wrote:

---from a google news headline in passing...---

The Guardian - 1 hour ago

Organic produce and meat typically is no better for you than
conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content,
although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a US study.

---

ok, so tell me, how does "reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria" equate with "typically no better
for you" ?


songbird

And who sets the levels that are considered safe? The EPA that sent
first responders into "ground zero" while it was still toxic, and
reassured residents that it was safe to return home?

I was listening to a most interesting report on the radio the other day and
the person being interviewed seemed to be incredibly pragmatic and said that
she made decisons about buying organic or not based on the chance of the
'thing' having been heavily sprayed or not.

She also made the point that although, in the western world,
pesticide/chemical residues were not considered a problem by our respective
governments as individual chemicals were many times lower than the legally
permitted levels. she said that the real danger may arise from the
conbination of these chemicals eg 'B' might be OK on its own but combine it
with residue 'C' and it was realy not good in the human body. She believed
govts needed to look closer at these combinations - can't remember now what
she called it but it had a technical name.