Several years ago when Cecil was answering a question about organic farming, Cecil said “organically grown produce isn’t necessary better for you”, but I disagree. Organically grown produce is better for the planet, and what’s better for the plannet is better for you. If Cecil said “organically grown produce isn’t necessary directly better for you”, that would be different, but it is indirectly better for you. Comments?
Okay, here’s one. The conventional wisdom on best practices here is that your thread will be more successful if you post a link to the article on which you are commenting.
Here’s another comment: Cecil’s actual words were
Within the context of the entire column, in which he also writes:
The sharp-minded reader will likely read the “directly” as implied the sentence, notwithstanding that his sharp eyes noted its absence.
It appears that your issue with the wording as published is that it doesn’t stress the environmental/ecological/biologically-sustainable aspects of organic vs. non-organic farming. Given that the column as a whole addresses these quite adequately (IMHO), C___l is not remiss at all in couching one sentence in strictly medical/nutritional terms (again, IMHO).