It was all over the news: biological food is not better. Only a little bit of pesticides less, or less antibiotic-resistant bacterias and some more vitamins maybe…I prefer a cow that has grazed on lush pasture without chemical fertilizers, enjoying
fresh grass and herbs, no hormones or antibiotics added and without the industrial food. No super chicken of a few weeks, full of water, but a hen from the land, heavy, with a little bit of fat but most and for all, with tasty meat. No watery tomatoes, but
those, who did grow slowly in the sun; without pesticides, herbicides and other chemical stuff. Fresh picked and consumed, there is nothing better to my mind. But yes, it would be a disaster, if you could ‘prove’ that bio is better – especially
when consumers are choosing nowadays more and more organic food – because then the industry would have a tough job to sell their goods. So I did some research myself yesterday, and collected approx. 20 pages of interesting facts and figures about
this issue. In this you can read also, that some earlier research has been omitted due to not-meeting-the-criteria (which ones?) and some information which did confirm a higher vitamin/mineral level, was not taken into account too. Question is, who has initiated
all these ‘’scientific research’’ in the first place and for what purpose?