On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:19:45 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 15:49:58 -0700, Janet Bostwick
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
>> >Janet US
>>
>> I am neither for nor against organic (or any article I share here) I
>> simply thought the article had some things of interest to say. Bryan
>> was the only one that picked up on the actual nutritional aspect of
>> the forms of milk. All others seemed to have an immediate bias to
>> disprove the worth of the study and support their personal hobby
>> horse. I expected Sheldon to be the first in line.
>> Janet US
>
>We pointed out that the headline claim was an overreach from the results
>of the study in question. The issue is grass fed vs. grain fed, not
>organic vs. non organic. As I noted, a lot of research is pointing to
>excess corn consumption not being good, and this study shows how it is
>not good even with indirect consumption.

O.k., I was lazy and copied the headline to make a subject line. It
was obviously a reporter's attempt at getting attention. The real
stuff in the article for me was the increased nutrition from a natural
diet. I guess I was disappointed that the responses seemed to
indicate a bias against studies, government studies, studies supported
by money from potential interested parties and a study that seems to
indicate one diet is better than another. To me, content or substance
is more important than pointing out editorial tinkering.
I probably should have prefaced the article, but it was easier to copy
and paste. Sorry
Janet US