Research on different farming systems can often seem like a contest in which one practice is pitted against another and in which researchers must pick sides. Science should stay focused on the heart of the matter: the provision of more nutritious food for more people in a more sustainable way.
Some debates run and run. Last month, an analysis found that a selection of organically farmed food contained, on average, higher concentrations of supposedly beneficial antioxidant compounds than food produced by conventional farming.
This field is still relatively small and the quality of research can be variable. The analysis advances previous work, thoroughly evaluates the current situation and yields some results that warrant further investigation. Still, several prominent nutrition scientists have voiced valid criticisms of the paper’s method and statistical analysis, and have raised concerns over the scientific rigour of some of the primary research that it covers.
Beyond the arguments about this specific study, which the authors have defended, lies a bigger issue. There are some fundamental questions that this type of research cannot answer, despite the way the results have been interpreted by the mainstream media as pointing to clear benefits of organic farming.
Read the full, original article: Food for thought
