Le Monde devoted almost three pages of its “Science & Medicine “ section of November 6, 2024 to two articles by Mr. Stéphane Foucart on the theme of the (alleged)  health benefits of “organic” food … an anthology of articles favorable to organic food, the result of cherry picking, partly in the militant “science”  literature.

…

“In just a few weeks of experimentation, the “conventional partridges”  saw their immune system disrupted compared to that of the “organic partridges”, their red blood cell count reduced, and the quantity of intestinal parasites increased. Published in 2021 in Environmental Pollution , these results also show that conventional females lay smaller eggs, with thinner shells; they have also accumulated more fat mass and are of a stronger build than the “organic ” ones. As for the males, their plumage is less colorful. These effects modulated according to sex could be linked, according to the researchers, to the endocrine disrupting properties of certain pesticides. ”

This article does not seem to have received much publicity. As we saw above, the Centre d’Études Biologiques de Chizé (CEBC/CNRS) – led by Mr. Vincent Bretagnolle – published an article with a peremptory and highly militant title: “For birds too, eating organic is better for health” , but, ultimately, it is not convincing – and for good reason.

…

But this is the first piece in Le Monde by Mr. Stéphane Foucart, in reality, to attack conventional agriculture.

Let’s be logical: if  “For birds too, eating organic is better for health” – note again the  “also” – were true, it would have been known for a long time. Poultry and egg producers would not have failed to notice it. And this superiority alleged here for livestock is not an element of the argument of the “organic” advocates.

Editor’s Note: This article has been translated from French and edited for clarity.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here