Hold the phone! A press release informs us that over two winters, using two different varieties of wheat, garden birds and lab canaries preferred conventional over organic grain. And the reason seems to be that the conventional grain contained 10% more protein. Very smart! But before word goes out to the birds of the world, consider what else the press release says:
This study is only looking at one aspect of the organic food debate – it does not take into account the long-term health implications of using chemical fertilizers and pesticides, or the often negative environmental impact of conventional farming; for example, other work has shown that pesticides can strongly reduce availability of seeds for birds. But it does raise questions about the nutritional benefits of organic food and what consumers are being led to believe.
Because consumers in the UK are choosing organic for its higher protein levels? Because they’re short of protein? More to the point, has anyone asked the birds to consider the long-term consequences of their choices, like the reduced availability of seeds, or nesting spots, or insects for their insectivorous feathered friends?
And, let’s not forget, increased levels of carbon dioxide are reducing protein levels in wheat. Another good reason to grow conventionally, whatever that means.
“Gary says: [A]ll you will get from political advocates is disinformation and misinformation intended to advance their agenda.”
But scientists have no agendas or bias, Gary?; above the fray and all that? I suggest you read the letters section of Nature or Science sometime.
Just because cause advocates highlight evidence that they see as supporting that cause does not make them suspect, just human.