Or, at least, does it really matter what the Stanford study said?
The answer among the organic eating community is a resounding no. You may be thinking we're all just stubborn and pig-headed (which may be true...), but it's really because most of us feel that the study either
- misses the point. OR
- is altogether flawed, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Others say the study is flawed.
Mother Jones found several flaws.
Prison Planet did some leg work finding the funding behind the study (conflict of interests much??).
The Huffington Post also picks apart the study (and the article was also printed in Prevention).
I say both. I don't only eat organic food because it is nutritionally superior, I eat it to avoid undesirable substances like pesticides and GMO's. But I do still think that organic is generally more nutrient rich than conventional.