Disinformation at the CBC?

I saw a news item on CBC Newsworld reporting on a study that claims that organically-produced food does not deliver any more nutrition than conventionally-grown food. Whoever wrote the piece claimed no additional health benefits from organically-produced food, as though this second claim followed logically from the first.

Sorry, but it does not. It represents a second claim with which I vehemently disagree.

First, let us safely ignore the bias issue here. I don’t want to debate the merit of the study based on who commissioned it and why. Yes, Monsanto might have commissioned it as part of a disinformation campaign. I don’t care about that here.

Next, let us safely ignore the possibility of a flawed study. Yes, the researchers might have made 37 mistakes in conducting the study. I don’t care about that here, either.

On to my point: the flaw in logic that warps the message of study. Logic does not dictate that “no additional nutrition” implies “no additional health benefits”. Indeed, Sarah and I immediately looked at each other after hearing this news item and said the same thing: organically-produced food doesn’t have more nutrition as its goal, but rather less toxicity.

Let me repeat that: of course, organically-produced food doesn’t have substantially more nutritional content than conventionally-produced food. Who cares? First, give me consistently less toxic food, then let me worry about additional nutrition by choosing food with the nutritional profile I need.

I didn’t expect CBC Newsworld to participate in this disinformation campaign. Sloppy writing; sloppy reporting. A shame.