A follow-up on the matter of the study out of Stanford bashing organic food: Sunday's NYT has an article that's quite a change from the general media tale on this. Really quite a feat (in a good way) for Kim Severson to get this follow-up into the news pages, bringing a far more critical look. Severson's article is hardly what the food-movement types would want to see if they could write the rebuttal; it comes across as very mixed, in fact, critiquing the Stanford study gently. But it's good and impressive it's there. Also on Sunday, Nicholas Kristof chimes in with a critique.
The NYT's original hard-news story, it should be said, while not good, was hardly like much of the crazy reporting on the study (including Roger Cohen's NYT column).