3 ms·
The meta-analysis cited at the beginning of this article has problems. But even if it didn't, you only need to read the conclusion to know the headline writers
by torgoguys 11y ago
The meta-analysis cited at the beginning of this article has problems. But even if it didn't, you only need to read the conclusion to know the headline writers are getting this wrong.
As alluded to in that conclusion, the study isn't so much a comparison of organic vs. conventional as it is a comparison of grass fed vs. grain fed animals. The article does refer to this in passing and then continues along.
And it is odd to tout the increase in omega-3s anyway. "Yay, we raised the omega-3s found in beef from a tiny-amount to a statistically-interstingly-higher-but-still-tiny-amount."
Going on to the next study cited in the article doesn't help it. Note how the article shifts from saying that the compounds are potentially beneficial over to saying they are. And then it ignores the evidence mounting that maybe all of our hopes that lots of dietary antioxidants would help us live longer/better may have been sadly misplaced.
Bah...I hate the state of health news reporting.
- ank_the_elder 11y agoI'd say it follows the sad state of science reporting... even reporting in general.
- mathattack 11y agoTake it from the source - NPR is playing to a pro-organic audience. I personally hope organic is healthier because I can afford to buy it, but I'm reminded of watching the super at my old building toss the recycling into the regular trash - perhaps it's all really treated the same.
- dasil003 11y agoIf it's all treated the same that would be a massive scandal, regardless of the ultimate health effects.
- mathattack 11y agoMy understanding is that the testing regime for organic is very weak. I would be surprised if this doesn't happen a lot. Perhaps genetic testing could give some hints? (Of GMOs if not pesticides?)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tmsam 11y agoDid you read the whole article? I was composing a similar comment in my head, but then got to "switching from conventional milk to organic milk would increase omega-3 intake by only very small margins... protein levels were lower in organic crops such as wheat... from a health perspective, what you eat matters more than whether you choose organic or conventional." I agree that any science-for-the-public reporting tends to do a bad job of conveying the inherent uncertainty in current research, but I feel like this was not terrible.