Tedd Koren, DC Defends Organic Food

Categories

Here’s my response to the article by Reuters (see here and here) reporting that organic food has no nutritional benefit of conventional food:In a word (well, two): junk science.

Continuing in the tradition of cigarette company scientists “proving” cigarettes don’t cause cancer or heart disease I find the above dumb, dumber and dumberer study that organic food is no healthier.

Please tattoo this to your brain – just because a study is published, that doesn’t mean it is valid science.  According to David Eddy, MD, Ph.D of Duke University  99% of the papers in bio-journals are trash.

I wish reporters would do more than just repeat what guys in white coats with letters after their name say.

I mean, if a politician says something, reporters are all over him, dissecting his words, looking into his background, searching for conflicts of interest, getting opinions from other who may disagree.

But if a so-called “researcher” who wrote a “scientific” paper says something?  They stop being reporters and turn into typists.  Do they ask for second opinions?  Do they question his research, his interpretation of the raw data?  His facts? His background for conflict of interest?

I don’t think so.

OK, it’s tough dissecting data, but how much would it cost for ABC or NBC or whoever to pay a statistician to review the paper?

Let’s break this down:

Researchers have “proven” that canned food is as good for you as fresh food, that mercury is good for you, and that this wonder drug cures cancer (we usually see this story a few times a year).   Remember, “experts” said that formula is as good as breastfeeding, hormone replacement therapy is safe, DDT is good for you etc. etc.

And they told Columbus the world was flat.

My suspicion is that the authors used selective review of poorly done research.  The classical research done by Rutgers University researchers (Bear, Firman E, Stephen J. Toth and Arthur L. Prince. “Variation in Mineral Composition of Vegetables.” Proceedings of the Soil Science Society of America, 13:380-384, 1948.) showed that the amount of minerals in vegetables grown in different soils could vary by a factor of 20, 30, 50.  That’s right, one vegetable could have 50 times more calcium or iron or manganese or other such minerals and trace elements than another – all depending on the soil quality.  Which would you eat?  According to the London school of Hygiene it makes no difference.

Does anyone in his or her right mind believe that this has no bearing on health?

I remember a friend of mine who lived his life in Israel and came to visit the US for a few weeks.  He called the food here, “tasteless.”  Another from Russia said he could barely eat the food here – “It all tastes like plastic.”

You know what real research we need?  Let’s compare the health of people living on an organic diet versus those on a “conventional” diet.  Follow them around for a few years. That’ll tell us something, not the junk science above.

bckoren

1 Comment

  1. Carol Mancini on August 18, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    As Dr Chestnut has said-if you can’t pick it fresh or shoot it in the wild-it is not worth eating.Everything processed or canned etc. has lost its nutritional value.Just because it says Healthy Choice on it-does not mean it should be consumed.An apple that will last in your refrigerator for six months-due to all the chemical preservatives-probably is not good for you.People need to open their eyes and read the studies for what they are-political marketing nonsense.

Leave a Comment





Chiropractic: Bringing Out The Best In You! 10th Edition

$75.00

Increase retention and referrals by educating your patients – they’ll value your care, stay in care and refer others! We’ve…

More Info

Myth Busting Reports – Value Pricing Set

$120.00 $100.00

We do the research. You teach your patients. When you are asked about these hot topics, you’ll have ready answers…

More Info