Pointed by Denyse as usual, this article discusses the problem with meta-analysis studies. It says that meta-analyses are designed to combat misinformation but too often do the opposite.
No. A meta-analysis may happen to weed out bad studies, and may happen to emphasize bad studies. Either result is irrelevant. The PURPOSE of a meta-analysis is to churn out Least Publishable Units and gain tenure without the expense of a real physical research project. You can call it efficiency or laziness, but you CAN’T call it an attempt to prove validity.
This specific article is talking about a meta-analysis of organic food that finds no particular advantage or increased purity in advertised organic foods. Extremely unsurprising. USDA and FDA have been running strict tests on food for a long time. At the commercial level, I know that grain elevators carefully test wheat and corn for protein and starch to sell it at appropriate prices. I’m sure other food processors run similar forms of grading for price. The Organic sales pitch focuses on microquantities for a good reason, because meaningful quantities of contaminants haven’t been in commercially sold food for 100 years.
Polistra's Mill 