In article ,
Roy wrote:

On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:11:25 AM UTC-6, Farm1 wrote:
"songbird" wrote in message

...

---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" ?



This is a summary:

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685



They didn't actually do anything except to review 'evidence'.

But no one knows how valid that evidence was or how it was gathered or
who paid the bill for it. I would say that the summary is weak and
practically useless.

They say there was no funding. Remember, they aren't testing, they are
only reading other people's work, and forming their conclusions. What
they read, and how they cast it in a "maybe, possibly, might" kind of a
vocabulary, is essentially useless when compared with actual testing.
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running