Consulting soil scientist Doug Edmeades has been a long-time critic of unscientific practices among which he includes homeopathy and organics.
In a paper published in 2010 he said:
A recent major review of the scientific literature, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2009, includes results from 162 studies and concludes: “…… there is no evidence of a difference in the nutrient quality between organic and conventional foodstuff.” . . .
. . . “We are not talking about the results of one experiment, we are talking about hundreds of studies and it is not the conclusion of one person or team – different groups of researchers have reached the same conclusion”.
“The significance of these conclusions should be far reaching” said Dr Edmeades, “because they undermine the primary purpose of the Organic Movement which has claimed for years that organically grown food is better than conventionally produced food.”
Now, in a paper to a Grasslands conference he says it’s time for evidence-based science to reclaim the moral high ground:
He says science policy makers need to exclude pseudo science if agricultural science is to be part of the solution to producing more food to for a rapidly increasing world populatrion.
”Unfortunately in this age of new age thinking, there’s a plethora of such claims,” he said. . .
He says organic farming produces at best only about 68% of the yields of conventional farming and there’s no evidence that it’s better for the environment, or that organic food is healthier.
”The organic movement is based on a falsity,” he said. ”It doesn’t have any magical properties.”
The best counter to pseudo-science is science but it costs money and takes time.
That has left a vacuum which has been filled with claims based on non-scientific claims and practices.