http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/that-flawed-stanford-study/?smid=fb-share (critique of the study)
ECOGEEK is one of my favorite sites that is full of interesting and evolutionary information. The article mentioned above revolves around his critique on a certain study that claims "organic food differs little from non organic food".
The ecogeek author does note that the study misses the whole point and gives a bad impression to the general public.
"A critique of the study in the New York Times by columnist and food writer Mark Bittman points out the weaknesses and oversimplifications in the study that have been used to "debunk" organic food based on criteria that are significantly immaterial to the organic label.
Bittman says of the study, "[it] was like declaring guns no more dangerous than baseball bats when it comes to blunt-object head injuries. It was the equivalent of comparing milk and Elmer’s glue on the basis of whiteness. It did, in short, miss the point." The other half of the conclusion of the study, "Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria," was much more overlooked"
Please read the topmost link above but to make the story short. What the author really means to say is the study isn't HOLISTIC. And that is the kind of evaluation this blog has been impressing upon its readers.