How Article Writers Cheat To Make Subject Matter Look Better

Recently, I came across this article in my news feed:

6 Reasons You Should Eat Organic from mindbodygreen.com

I am a skeptic. I doubt most things I read, and the "goodness" of organic food is one of those "it smells" things. And I am not surprised that the writer cheated on several counts to come up with six items, and most of those are extremely one-sided, but then, a website named "mindbodygreen.com" is hardly a neutral source.

First thing to note... the original URL says "4 reasons"... Article says 6 reasons. So clearly, it's been "edited" to inflate the number of reasons.

So, what are the reasons?

1. Organic food can reduce the amount of chemicals in our bodies
2. Organic food can lead to more nutritious or vitamin-enriched fruits and vegetables
3. Organic dairy and meat can be healthier than non-organic varieties
4. Organic food may have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids
5. Organic food is GMO-free
6. Organic food might be better for the environment

Just looking at the list and you can see they repeated a few. 3 is basically a subset of 2. 4 is again, a subset of 2.  

Let's rewrite that to cut away the redundancy, and we're left with

1. Organic food can reduce the amount of chemicals in our bodies
2. Organic food can lead to more nutritious or vitamin-enriched fruits and vegetables  can be more nutritious/healthier
3. Organic dairy and meat can be healthier than non-organic varieties  (see 2)
4. Organic food may have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids  (see 2)
5. Organic food is GMO-free
6. Organic food might be better for the environment

Now let's examine the statements one at a time. 

Myth 1) "Organic food can reduce the amount of chemicals in our bodies"

The statement in itself is already inaccurate. What it should say is "eating organic food may reduce the amount of chemicals we consume in our food". 

Yes, organic food has, in general, fewer synthetic pesticide residue than conventional food. That, however, doesn't make it "less chemicals" overall.

What the organic promoters don't want you to think about is "poison is poison". And pesticide, no matter synthetic or "natural", is designed to KILL pests. If it doesn't kill pests, it's not a good pesticide. And because "natural" pesticide is not as effective as the synthetic ones, farmers need to use more of it to grow the same crops.

A natural poison is still poison. Given that no synthetic pesticide is used in organic farming, it's a GIVEN it should have less than conventional farming... balanced by all the NATURAL pesticide residue. But because we don't measure that...

One of the more dangerous all-natural pesticides, Rothenone, wasn't banned by USDA until 2018. Before then, it was perfectly acceptable to use as a part of organic farming. 

Those who want a more concrete example are welcome to look up the toxicity figures of organic fungicide pyrethrum and organic pesticide copper sulfate, and compare them with their synthetic equivalent: chlorothalonil and chlorpyrifos, respectively. You may be surprised.

What the organic promoters also won't tell you is that any "synthetic chemicals" you consume now is, on the average, less than 1% of allowable daily limits as set by the FDA.

Conclusion: FALSE / MISLEADING

Myth 2) "Organic food can be more nutritious"

More vitamins in fruits. More antioxidants in onions. More omega-3 fatty acids in meat. Yes, organic food often has small gains in nutrition.

However, the gain are minor, and not commensurate with the increase in price. Still, it's accurate enough.

Conclusion: TRUE / If you don't read more into what it actually says

Myth 3) "Organic food is GMO-free"

This statement is basically... irrelevant. It doesn't explain whether it's good or bad for you. But given the nature of the website, I have to assume they meant that as a pejorative.

I honestly don't see why GMO is the big boogeyman some folks are so dead-set against. We've been selectively breeding plants for thousands of years. But the real question here is... "Is GMO good/bad for you?" And this basically turns into a question of opinion... and science is definitely "undecided".

Conclusion: TRUE / but relevance is debatable

Myth 4) "Organic food may be better for the environment"

If you assume both are "locally sourced", that may be true... or it may not be. Organic farming is less efficient and often yields less than 20-40% than that of conventional farming. So you need 20-40% more acreage to produce the same amount of product. Sure, you use less synthetic stuff, but that doesn't mean it's better for the environment in itself, as the "natural" substitute may work less efficiently, so you end up needing MORE of it...

And when you throw in the international nature of agriculture, when your "organic" beans may be from South America, and your organic garlic may be from China... just the carbon footprint calculation may drive you nuts.

Conclusion: INCONCLUSIVE / too many variables

In Conclusion

In the "6" points shown, 2 are duplicates, 1 inconclusive, 1 false, and both of the 2 remaining "True" items have caveats that were basically glossed over.

That's not a news item, but a propaganda piece, using the following tricks:

• Count inflation by subdividing reasons
• Ignoring the gray areas
• Cherry-picking evidence
• One-sided statements with no pretense at balance

And now you know.

Pardon for the long hiatus

Suffice to say, my life circumstances have changed, and while I'm trying to settle down, it's my time to write about things is severely limited.

I am back, but I still won't be writing that often. Figure once or twice every month.