Organic – How it was misrepresented and maligned in the press

“Organic.” When that word first took root in our parlance people used it in business meetings to suggest that their project (or business) would grow unfettered. I don’t know about you, but this usage of “organic” along with other yuppie words (like “facetime”) made my head spin.

But the reason “organic” wheedled its way into our vernacular was not because it implied that a business project would have a higher vitamin content. It just meant it wouldn’t be unduly cultivated by outside forces. The project would just grow, as apparently nature intends business projects to do.

Let me be clear before I continue. I am not recommending organic or non-organic food in this blog. I only aim to illustrate how an article can bias science facts — just by how it was written. I am using the New York Times article as an example. But many similar pieces across publications came out the same day.

1.) Let’s start out of the gate with the opening line: “Does an organic strawberry contain more vitamin C than a conventional one?”

If you were hooked by this, you may have been lured into “accepting the premise.” If you accepted the premise, you may have then thought that organic food should be more nutritious and it should have more vitamins than non-organic food.

It should not.

If you read the Organic Food Production Act  (I just did, and it’s actually pretty interesting. OK, it is not even half as interesting as the celebrity photos on HuffPost, but it is worth perusing), you will see that there is no mention of nutrition, nutrients or higher vitamin levels whatsoever.

Read more on Huffington Post