retail news in context, analysis with attitude

The New York Times that when the recent Stanford University study came out suggesting that organic foods are no more nutritious than conventionally grown foods, thoroughly enraging people emotionally and financially invested in the consumption of organics, it was in fact the second such study reaching the same basic conclusions.

An earlier report along the same lines had been released by scientists at Newcastle University in England in April 2011 - though it it did not ignite the firestorm that the Stanford study did.

The Times notes that there were methodology differences between the two studies: "Neither the Stanford nor the Newcastle researchers conducted new field or laboratory work; rather, both groups performed a meta-analysis, a statistical compilation of earlier work by others ... Such analyses seek out robust nuggets in studies of disparate designs and quality that offer confounding and often conflicting findings, especially in nutrition and medicine. The way the data from various studies is divvied up or combined in a meta-analysis can make a big difference in the conclusions. In the organic food research, some studies reported many measurements, some only a few. Some included several crops grown over multiple years, while others looked at only a few samples."
KC's View:
In the end, however, both studies ignored what organic enthusiasts say is thew real point - that they buy organics "to avoid pesticides, for the health of farm workers and for environmental considerations," as the Times put it.