Food studies don’t always tell the whole story

The flip-flop nature of food research is enough to drive you crazy.

Every day, it seems, there’s a new study about whether coffee, eggs or other foods are life-lengtheners or heart-stoppers, often appearing to contradict the study that came before.

Take, for example, two studies that made headlines recently. One found little evidence that organically grown food is more nutritious than conventionally grown produce, and the other challenged the long-held assumption that severe calorie-restricted diets would increase lifespan in higher primates.

For Luisa Newton, the news that Stanford University researchers found little evidence that organic products consistently were higher in vitamins won’t change her habit of buying mostly organic produce.

“In most of the publicity, they don’t point out that non-organic food has more pesticide residue, and that concerns me as much as any nutrition comparison,” said Newton, a retired singer in San Antonio. “So does the effect of pesticides on the rest of the environment.”

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.


No comments yet.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.