Gourmet's Barry Estabrook makes sense of the battle over the benefits of organic food. The following is an excerpt of his findings published on Gourmet.com.
It's never a good start to your day when the first email you open is an authoritative-sounding press release forwarded by your boss that directly contradicts something you published on the company's website.
"You know anything about this?" she asked ominously.
The release came from the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). Made public on Tuesday, it was headlined: "Scientist Debunks Myth of Organic Nutritional Superiority," and, not surprisingly, it received considerable media attention.
The myth that was supposedly debunked was featured in this space a few months ago. It was a study co-authored by Dr. Charles Benbrook of the Organic Center, an affiliate of the Organic Trade Association, an industry group, which reported on the results of a review of nearly 100 scientific papers examining levels of nutrients in organic versus conventional crops. Benbrook and his associates concluded that organic food was on average 25 percent more nutrient-dense. Their work was regarded as one of the first scientifically valid research projects that clearly showed such an advantage. Earlier studies had been inconclusive. I felt some vindication for my own preference for organic foods and applauded the findings.
The release from the ACSH sharply criticized Benbrook's paper. Its condemnation of his work was based on a critical review written by Joseph D. Rosen, emeritus professor of food science at Rutgers University. To be kind, it is scathing. Some choice arguments...
The story continues at Gourmet.com: Politics of the Plate: Fighting Words
10 More Dirty Restaurant Tricks
5 Things You Didn't Know About Turducken
10 Catchiest Food Jingles We Love to Hate
