Reply to comment
Consider the source
August 15, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 14 weeks ago
Comment id: 31525
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
If you just look at who posted this entry: Society of Chemical Industry's (SCI) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture .. it might make you wonder what vested interest this journal has in the argument. Let's see, if I was part of the CHEMICAL INDUSTRY, don't you think I would want to knock the idea that organic is better, since I sell chemicals? All the latest studies point to organic foods having higher nutritional value. In addition, people buy organic for a number of other reasons, including: not wanting chemicals in their bodies, the studies showing pesticides showing up in breast milk, not wanting to pollute the soil and water. Buying organic makes sense, plain and simple.