News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide re... by dekhn on Saturday July 12, 2014 @10:48AM (#8024662)
Like the article says, the authors didn't claim the differences they found actually have any impact on health. They just claim they measured a difference, and the difference was significant (unlikely to be explained by chance).

That's fine, but this really doesn't inform consumer decision making in a valuable way. Many consumers would hear this and immediately assume that consuming organic food is safer, which isn't well-supported.

Note that low levels of toxic chemicals can often be completely harmless (if you want a better explanation than that, buy http://www.amazon.com/dp/0815340761 and read the section on the Ames test, dose response relationships, and why tests aren't useful predictors of risk at low concentrations.

Re:Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide re... by saraid216 on Saturday July 12, 2014 @01:13PM (#8025101)
Science: clearly doesn't matter unless it informs consumer decision-making in a valuable way.
Re:Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide re... by judk on Saturday July 12, 2014 @04:52PM (#8025753)
Data without context is low information content. Your snark is misplaced.
Re:Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide re... by saraid216 on Sunday July 13, 2014 @12:02AM (#8026600)
Then go read the context. You're not required to make life-altering decisions when comprehending data. That's for people who cite single studies as justification for their latest hare-brained scheme to do.