1) You state that ‘it removes most of the data from consideration because it doesn’t meet the best standards of scientific research’ almost as if that’s a bad thing and unfair. In fact, it is very important to do this. One reason would be to remove data that may be from biased research (biased in either direction). Otherwise the results would not be scientific, but simply which side can put forward the most flawed studies.

2) I have not read the study or the press release (which probably makes me ill-qualified to comment!) but there is often disparity between the actual content and conclusions of a study and the wild claims made by the press release (see http://www.badscience.net for much more on this). I have certainly seen reports on this study that give a more measured view, more along the lines of ‘this study did not find evidence of nutritional benefit, but more good data is needed to provide a higher level of confidence’. We mustn’t fall into the trap of attacking the science because of the over-excited press-release.

This is not an attack on organics – I buy organic products, but personally it is for many other good reasons rather than any perceived nutritional benefit.

The link with climate change is another interesting point. I think the big difference is that the repercussions for civilisation of us eating marginally less of certain nutrients are substantially lower than a significant change in the climate, and so the precautionary priniciple has to kick in even if we are not 95% certain on every aspect of the science.