In todays Washington Post, Jennifer LaRue Hugets weekly column, "Eat, Drink and Be Healthy," is devoted to Julia Childs famous book on which she is somewhat less enthusiastic than Peggy Steinfels in her thread of a day or two ago. In the same issue of the Post, she has a little note "The Checkup," which begins with this paragraph:

A paper in the September issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reviewed all the scientific studies of organic and conventional foods published between 1958 and 2008. Culling flawed studies left a team of researchers with 162 out of an initial 152,000. Examining those 162 studies' findings, the researchers found that organically produced foods offered no nutritional advantages over conventionally produced foods.

I am less interested in the results of this study than in that off-hand remark that "culling flawed studies left a team of researchers with 162 out of an initial 152,000." Now does this mean that, as my trusty calculatorleads me to believe, that only.00108% of all those studies can be considered not to be flawed? That only one in a thousand of them is not flawed?By the way, our hens have begun producing eggs. Organic, and nutritionally far superior to any others produced anywhere on the planet.