misguided?

Contrary to most of the press coverage, the Food Standards Agency report published last week did not prove that organic food was no better for you than non-organic. It merely showed that there was no conclusive evidence either way, on the grounds of a limited review of existing research into a limited range of nutrients taken in isolation. It did not touch on the effects of the pesticide contamination routinely found in almost 50% of conventional fruit and veg. Neither did it touch on the effect of the massive use of antibiotics that props up an intensive pig and poultry industry. It did not even touch on the well proven benefits to biodiversity and the lower carbon footprint of organic food, or the higher standards of animal welfare.

Even the very limited area of its study is at odds with the preliminary findings of a much larger