But she identifies Charles Benbrook as "former executive director of the Board on Agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences, who is a consultant on the impact of agricultural systems and technology on food safety and the environment". He's co-author of a study comparing pesticide residues on organic and conventional foods, which has come to the conclusion that "lower pesticide levels translate into lower risk of cancer and other health effects for consumers who eat organic food, particularly children." And he has argued, albeit somewhat persuasively to me, against biotech foods. Not that he's a crank by any means, but he does have an ax to grind. So even if his support for the research is nuanced, it's worth mentioning more about his background.
Similarly,
Dr. John Reganold, a professor of soil science at Washington State University, who has conducted research with organic farming systems systems, described the Italian study as good, and said the results were valid.Here's a report on an organic research project of his. And note that that project was funded by the Organic Farming Research Foundation, which promotes organic farming.
Finally, she concludes the article by quoting Marion Nestle:
I don't think there is any question that as more research is done, it is going to become increasingly apparent that organic food is healthier.It's disheartening to see a scientist who thinks she knows the answer even before anyone has done the research!
On the other hand, people you'd think would be less objective are fairly reasonable. The executive director of the Organic Trade Association, which is looking to finance research on organic food says,
We want to take the knowledge to the next level until there is a solid body of research that we can stand behindand a researcher of one of the studies cited says
We acknowledge it's very preliminary data.Damn straight.
No comments:
Post a Comment