New Junk Science Study Dismisses Nutritional Value of Organic Foods

September 4, 2012
Print This Post Print This Post

organicYou’d think Stanford would be above such sloppy research. You’d be wrong.

Stanford University researchers conducted a meta-analysis (a selection and summary) of seventeen studies in humans and 230 field studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in unprocessed foods (e.g., fruits, vegetables, grains, milk, eggs, chicken, pork, and meat).

The study, published yesterday in The Annals of Internal Medicine, concluded that “the published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

The media, of course, pounced on the first part of the conclusion and reported it with their usual ferocity, but in many instances completely ignored the second part. In fact, their headlines would lead you to believe there is no benefit to organic foods at all: “Stanford Scientists Cast Doubts on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce” (New York Times); “Organic Food is Not Healthier than Conventional Produce” (Huffington Post); “Study Questions How Much Better Organic Food Is” (Houston Chronicle); “Organic, Conventional Foods Similar in Nutrition, Safety, Study Finds” (Washington Post). Even Stanford’s own press release says, “Little Evidence of Health Benefits of Organic Food, Stanford Study Finds.”

What the study actually said was that they didn’t find “significant” or “robust” differences in nutritional content between organic and conventional foods, though they found that organic food had 30% less pesticide residue. Even though the pesticide levels fall within the safety guidelines set by the Environmental Protection Agency, it should be noted that the health effects of the pesticides are cumulative, and that what we would consider safe might not align with the EPA! For example, as we noted two weeks ago, herbicide residue on GMO crops may be causing fertility problems. Organophosphate exposure can lead to pre-term births, and both ADHD and lower IQs in children, according to several studies from leading universities.

The Stanford study also noted that the risk for ingesting antibiotic-resistant bacteria was 33% higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork. Remember our piece on “superbugs”? USDA routinely justifies irradiating or sterilizing food because of such food safety concerns, as we noted last week—and this study essentially proves that organics do not need to be sterilized because they are in fact so much safer.

The meta-analysis also found that organic produce contains higher levels of phosphorus, and that organic chicken contains higher levels of vaccenic acid and more organic phenols, which have antioxidant and anti-cancer effects. A few studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3s fatty acids.

What the Stanford study didn’t mention is that by definition, organic foods cannot contain GMOs, so they are far healthier than conventional foods. Even though the biotech industry keeps saying GMO is “safe” and equal to non-GMO crops, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Organic farming is also healthier for the environment because it does not employ large-scale factory farming conditions (not to mention being more humane toward the animals being raised for meat).

Charles Benbrook, PhD, a professor of agriculture at Washington State University and former chief scientist at The Organic Center who reviewed the Stanford study and most of the underlying literature, found the study misleading. He noted that several well-designed US studies show that organic crops have higher concentrations of antioxidants and vitamins than conventional crops. For crops like apples, strawberries, grapes, tomatoes, milk, carrots, and grains, organic produce has 10 to 30 percent higher levels of several nutrients, including vitamin C, antioxidants and phenolic acids in most studies.

As the Environmental Working Group notes, the Stanford study also contradicts the findings of what many consider the most definitive analysis in the scientific literature of the nutrient content of organic versus conventional food. In that 2011 study, a team led by Dr. Kirsten Brandt of the Human Nutrition Research Center of Newcastle University in the UK analyzed most of the same research and concluded that organic crops had approximately 12 to 16 percent more nutrients than conventional crops.

Critics were quick to point out flaws in the Stanford study’s methodology as well.

First, meta-analysis (that is, examining a large number of studies for commonalities) does not allow for the nuances and range of each of the studies—such as differences in testing methods, geography, and farming methods. There are a wide variety of different organic farming practices, and any given sample of food will reflect the soil in which it is grown. Chinese soil, for example, is notoriously deficient in selenium, and this carries through to the food. This makes it very hard to generalize based on an overview of a wide variety of studies.

Second, when researchers select studies for meta-analysis, they are free to cherry-pick whichever ones they like—and leave out any that might not support their conclusions. For example, a 2010 study by scientists at Washington State University found that organic strawberries contained more vitamin C than conventional ones. Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, a member of the Stanford team, said that this strawberry study was erroneously left out of the analysis, but that she doubted it would have changed the conclusions when combined with thirty-one other studies that also measured vitamin C!

What this comment completely omitted is that the chemicals used to treat non-organic strawberries are considered to be among the most dangerous. So arguing about the exact amount of vitamin C in the fruit ignores the main point that conventional strawberries are especially to be avoided because of contamination by a recognized poison.

Third, there was no long-term study of the health effects on humans of consuming organic foods versus conventional foods. The duration of the human studies ranged from two days to two years. Most of the health effects will take a lot longer than that to show up.

So once again we have the media trumpeting the most shocking tidbit as if it were representative of the entire study, and leaving out the most important findings—that organic foods are far safer in terms of pesticide content, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and GMOs. The media also didn’t bother doing a critical analysis of the study’s methodology and rarely even offered a fair presentation of what the study’s critics had to say.

ANH-USA will be contacting each media outlet and asking for a correction to be published. We won’t hold our breath. As our readers know, Big Food Companies, like Big Pharma companies, are Big Advertisers, and the conventional media seems to tailor its stories accordingly.


For more natural health news,
follow us on Facebook and Twitter

113 Responses to “New Junk Science Study Dismisses Nutritional Value of Organic Foods”

  1. June Heimsoth says:

    There is no end to the levels universities will stoop to to get funding from giant corporations. Six figure salaries (sometimes times 2) take a lot of funding.

       0 likes

    • Ogre says:

      And the one thing that they never mention is that plants usually aren’t looking for a particular mineral, they are looking for a radical hanging onto it. The plant will often settle for anything that has that radical. You may get a perfectly nice healthy, plant, but without the nutrition available from a plant grown in non-depleted soils.
      Generally speaking, if you don’t find it growing wild, the soil is probably missing something more than NPK.

         1 likes

  2. Jim Klug says:

    The key component of the Stanford report is in its methodology of determining the “Risk Difference”. The risk difference calculation fails the common sense (not to mention mathematical) test. One incidence of pesticide contamination is 5%, the other is 35% and the risk difference is 30%? What nonsense! The absolute difference may be only 30%, when simply subtracting one number from the other, but the effective difference is far, far greater.

    Contained in one of the articles I’ve read on this is the analysis of the study done by Professor Charles Benbrook, who states that the method of calculating the Risk Difference is an “unusual and unfamiliar metric” – and my limited research into the methodology of calculating risk supports his statement. Here is a link to his analysis for you to look at – it’s worth reading. http://www.tfrec.wsu.edu/pdfs/

    While Professor Benbrook calculated the difference one way, here’s another one that may make it clearer. Consider a situation where you are making 5% on $1000 and 35% on another $1000. The absolute difference between the two percentages obtained by simply subtracting one number from the other is 30%, certainly…but the difference between $50 and $350 is definitely not 30%! In reality, $50 is only about 15% of $350, so the real difference between the $50 and $350 is 85%…which is exactly what Professor Benbrook points out using his method of calculation.

    In a way, Professor Benbrook also understates the difference, depending on how you look at it. Certainly 5% is only 15% of 35%, so the difference can be stated as 85%…but 5% is also only 1/7 of 35%, so if you have 5 instances of pesticide contamination in once case and 35 instances in another case, the higher amount is actually 7 times (700%) of the lower amount. When we’re using statistics, as in so many things, the framing of the argument is the key…and that illustrates the accuracy of the famous Mark Twain quote “There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics”.

    As both Professor Benbrook and I have noted, using different forms of calculation, the risk difference claims made in the study are totally without merit in regard to the data in question – regardless of what other applications to which that kind of analysis may be valid – although I confess I can’t think of any that would be.

    Noting that most of America is woefully math challenged (not to mention logic and critical thinking challenged), it certainly appears to me…

       1 likes

    • Jim Klug says:

      Oops…the last part of my comment got cut off. Here’s what it said:

      Noting that most of America is woefully math challenged (not to mention logic and critical thinking challenged), it certainly appears to me that the researcher either deliberately structured the risk difference outcome to make the average person believe that the risk difference is much lower than it actually is – OR, the researcher is devoid of basic math, logic and statistical calculation skills. In other words, the researcher is either dishonest or incompetent…either one of which is enough to completely discredit any other information contained in the study and making the entire study worthless.

         2 likes

  3. Riky Rak says:

    I am Canadian and very happy to see that some people in California have guts to bring the GM food to the attention of everybody. Thank you Californians and keep it up!

       2 likes

  4. Christine says:

    Non-organic food is connected with GMO products, which are in turn connected with Monsato’s work. The ‘replacement’ of natural plant genes by man-made genes, results in a mixture of artifical
    poison grown and fed to humans. Just few results on this issue:
    http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=44B01FC78CDD4BA22DDADAB2E6965711

    PLEASE, spread that and let people know, what they are eating, by eating non-organic, especially when they are seriously sick (CANCER) and when studies, like Stanford’s, are backed up by certain interests groups….

       3 likes

  5. Thank you AHN-USA for being a source of clarity and providing unbiased reporting. What is happening to our nation’s food supply is an atrocity. And though I don’t think that all attempts to “improve” our food sources are solely profit-driven, or for other nefarious reasons, it is clear that many scientific research studies are structured in such a way to produce the sought after results. If people don’t speak up, write their representatives, and help to educate others, we will soon be so regulated that local farmers and back-yard gardeners will be prevented from growing natural, organic crops and raising animals without pesticides, chemicals and synthetic hormones. I’ve linked to your article in my recent blog post http://ibliving.com/blog/organic-food/ and hope others will do the same to help continue to spread the word.

       4 likes

  6. Vern J. says:

    When are people going to use common sense to evaluate everything. Look at both sides of each item and decide which is best for them. Our forefathers did not have anything but organic foods and they even lived longer than we do with fewer problems.

       7 likes

    • jimbo says:

      But that’s not true, is it? Life expectancy has steadily risen, and depending on when you date the time of our “forefathers” it has increased by around 20-30 years.
      Much of the shortened lifespan of our forefathers arose because of poor underlying nutrition and exposure to things like infections or other diseases which at the time were untreatable. Today we see a rise in the numbers dying from degenerative diseases like cancer and heart disease. Some of this is purely a byproduct of the fact that we are living so much longer – 200 years ago we might have died aged 40 from sepsis, but today we primarily die from the diseases of aging.
      Food and nutrition play only one part in this – some things are unavoidable. If diet could solve everything, where are all the 130yr olds who have eaten nothing but healthy/organic food for much of their lives? (or to put it another way, why wasn’t life expectancy over 100 in the time of our forefathers, rather than 50?)

         0 likes

      • Cynthia says:

        They didn’t have the Dr’s and hospitals, and knowledge and resources that we did. And they didn’t die from the diseases that most of the older generation is dying from today.

           0 likes

      • Cynthia says:

        And heart disease and cancer is not a disease you can get simply by aging. There isn’t such a thing as diseases of aging. It starts with food and how you take care of yourself, and starting while your young.

           1 likes

      • The 100+ population are living and living fully, here and more so in other cultures/parts of the world. They’re present in the way they experience life, eating well and living fully, happily, maybe disconnected or unconcerned with the media and the vast disconcern about health and wellness by the majority over here. Diet and nutrition can solve a number of enormous societal economic and health problems. Take a look at what obesity is costing us, to name one. How about heart disease? Tobacco? Leading preventable killers. Cancer is a byproduct of man. Manmade products and pollution.

           1 likes

  7. Jasmine Mills says:

    All pesticides on the produce or “aproved amount to be ingested”. Pesticides are not save at all no matter what your dosed is it build up in your system.

       2 likes

    • My mother was living proof as well as her parents that organic foods are healthier. They all
      passed away in their 90’s and I grew up on organic foods as none of them believed in pesticides and
      I thank them for this as I have been exceptionally healthy throughout my life and I still raise organic foods
      in my garden!

         3 likes

  8. Roger Fuller says:

    9-5-2012
    @ Chris C. Right On! Who did pay for this ridiculous study? That should be everyone’s first question, including ANH-USA. And I noticed that this article seems to make it a contest to see which nutrients have a higher percentage content in organic foods. While I do agree that the nutrient percentages are higher in organic food; the Stanford study never mentions genetically engineered food and the ANH-USA article talks very little about GE food. Genetically engineered food is far and away the greatest problem with conventional food for the past 19 years. With GE food, not only do you have less nutrients; the entire plant or animal that it comes from is a completely mutant organism. The mutant plant seed DNA reproduces the mutant traits again and again, as the plant grows, until the finished full grown plant is completely mutant. People don’t seem to realize that these are ” not of this earth plants ” . They might as well have dropped down from outer space! The entire biochemical molecular structure has changed. And as we have been told by Jeff Smith of the Institute of Responsible Technology, the DNA changes in the plant seed DNA actually produce an unstable DNA molecule with an unpredictable and unknown structure. The studies that we need to adequately reveal the structure of the resulting plant proteins have never been done; so GE food is a huge unknown. Who in their right mind would even want to take a chance with that?
    And finally, this degenerate Stanford study is just a pathetic attempt to sabotage proposition 37, the GE food right to know act in California, just 2 months before the election.

    yours truly,
    Roger Fuller

       6 likes

  9. Glory Huckabee says:

    Where does the media buy their food? What are their biases? Has there been a study done on this? This is, of course, all said tongue in cheek, but doesn’t the media also cherry-pick what they will present to the public based on their personal and corporate biases as much as those who produce and review the studies? What do the researchers eat for breakfast? It’s all very complicated isn’t it?

    Glory Huckabee

       1 likes

  10. M.E. says:

    I find it absurd that anyone would give credence to any study that so obviously goes against common sense. I do not need an “expert” or the findings of a questionable study to validate or discount what I already know; what is logical and reasonable. Poison (ie. pesticides & herbicides) and GMOs are destructive and dangerous to the health of living beings and the planet.

       4 likes

  11. Carol says:

    Thank you for publishing this article. I heard the sensationalized headline on the radio yesterday and immediately wondered about the true specifics of the study.

       2 likes

  12. Tina says:

    Just goes to show that you can’t believe a single word of anything that tries to pass itself off as “news.”

       2 likes

  13. MarkG says:

    I know is fashionable to blame business and the profit motive for everything. If the FDA does something wrong, it’s businesses’ fault! If the press does something wrong (final paragraph in the article), it’s the fault of advertisers! How about blaming the FDA and the press for their mistakes and leaving it at that?

    For those who want to theorize, consider an alternative theory. Big loves big. Big business, big unions, big education, big medicine, etc., all love big government, and vice versa. Individual freedom with strict curbs on government power means messy competition, and who wants to compete? From a government perspective, it is so much easier to direct the actions of, and harvest money from, a few big organizations, than to deal with hundreds of millions of citizens. As for the press, they control your vote by the news they report and the news they choose not to report; and your vote controls government. Heady stuff for the media! But it’s only worth anything if government is powerful. The more powerful the government, the more powerful the press. So they are all in bed together.

    I have no doubt that the natural health and supplement industry are threatened by government. Who authors the bills in question? Durbin (D), Reid (D), etc. The proximate danger comes from the FDA. So how will your readers vote? They’ll vote for a more powerful government, and tougher regulations.

    Thinking they are limiting the freedom of others, they will be limiting their own freedom. It really doesn’t matter if companies aren’t allowed to sell you “untested” supplements, or if you aren’t allowed to buy supplements. Either way you will have do without, emigrate, or skirt the law. Public tolerance for those who refuse a vaccine, drink unpasteurized milk, use an “untested” supplement, see someone who is not a preferred provider, eat as they choose, etc., can disappear in the blink of an eye.

       15 likes

    • Robert says:

      Interesting logic, MarkG, essentially making ‘big government’ the axle (not axis) of evil, around which big business, the big free press and limitation of personal freedom all spin, as spokes on a wheel.

      Economic systems, (once they surpass the size of a small village) of which pharmaceutical and agribiz are a part, need rules, and government – as agents of the citizenry – by default needs to establish them. Those rules must include regulations for anything that is likely to be harmful to health, a line that could be roughly drawn at the production of products that do not occur naturally – pharmaceutals, pesticides, GMO plants to name a few.
      The average citizen cannot be expected and is not qualified to determine the safety of a particular compound, and professionals who MAY be more qualified need to know they are working with reliable information. The FDA and USDA don’t abandon their oversight responsibility just because, it requires collusion from these multi-national (ie non-patriotic to the US) conglomerates whose raison d’être is profit, and who, like a noxious odor filling in every available crack, will go as far as they are allowed, and, in this time of ever-increasing political patronage being a necessity for winning elections, few from either party are willing to fill the cracks.
      A useful and ethical FDA, as the rest of government, would be as big as needed to do what it needs to do. Even with the laws in place today, the Merks, Pfeisers and Monsantos think of our lives in terms of cost/benefit analysis, and the FDA does as little as possible about it. It is not the size of government that makes the FDA dangerous, it is the corruption, and that IS the profit motive as a malignant, unchecked cancer. The fewer the rules, and the less the enforcement, the more the cancer will spread.

         4 likes

  14. BH Sales says:

    I have eaten organic foods for the last two decades plus. I have not been to a physician in over twenty years as I am virtually never ill. I also model my own business under this philosophy. Big Agri- is part of the machine. I am comfortable in doing my own consistent research and I can vouch for what organic has availed to my own health, and those of my clients who state the same, and align themselves with the life style.

    SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FARMERS!

    BH

       14 likes

  15. felixfelix says:

    See the article of some weeks ago in the New York Times about Stanford’s original and continuing function as a seedbed for various industries. Seems to me that this fits right in. I must say I also find the timing suspect: a California institution publishing this such a short time before the California vote?

       6 likes

  16. Donna Marquart says:

    I guess NPR repeats what is released from the mainstream media I’m disappointed – Maybe some discussion will occur – - go to NPR online and make a comment – they allow for that on their website. Follow the money. Monsatano is probably behind it – to “get the word out” before the California proposition to label GMO’s comes up this fall and is in the media.

       6 likes

  17. Chris C says:

    My question is who paid for this “study”? That is always my first question when suspect science is touted. How much were the scientists at Stanford paid and the school for that matter. Grilling the authors on that kind of info might embarrass them enough to limit how often this happens.

       8 likes

  18. nelly valla says:

    the FDA and USDA shound be out they are not working for food safety for the people they are owned by big corporation and it’s about time that we all wak up and realize what going on

       3 likes

  19. Bob says:

    I thought organic foods were by definition pesticide free?

       0 likes

    • Kaare says:

      They are,
      More information on this study, their use of confusing metrics, and underplaying their findings, is available in this article:

      http://www.organicconsumers.org/benbrook_annals_response2012.pdf

         1 likes

      • Bruce Stewart says:

        It appears that the Stanford researchers used the standard ploy of finding which statistic best shows the outcome they desire. Not the statistics that best represent the truth.

        Thank you for the link. Page 6 tells exactly why the study SEEMS to show that there is barely a difference in organic and conventional when there is actually a very large difference in true pesticide residue.

           1 likes

  20. pamela cote says:

    I listened to a report on NPR about this ’study’ , and, was struck by the 3 people discussing it. it was as if they were reading from a script that someone(?) had given them. it was shallow and unconvincing!

       9 likes

    • The Media analysis of the Stanford analysis of organic nutritional content vs pesticide grown crops is mind boggling. Consumers buy organic so their families do not take in pesticide residue and excessive antibiotics. They are fabricating an argument that no one is having.Their headlines are misleading a public that draws conclusions from only reading headlines.Perhaps that is their purpose. Our Internist recommended we buy organic as much as possible, especially for the children.His father, a Cardiologist, recently died from liver cancer. That doctor ate a heart healthy vegetarian diet. His sons had tissue analyses and many other tests done and found extreme amounts of pesticides in his organs. This is the reason people are paying more for their food.

         8 likes

    • Nancy G. McFadden says:

      Regarding National Public Radio talking about the organic study as if they were reading
      from a script.

      I have seen NPR do similar things on the issue on nuclear power, minimizing Fukushima
      especially. I have chosen to not believe them on anything, unless reliable sources say so.
      And reliable does not always mean the national media.

         5 likes

    • Pace D. Fering says:

      Yeah right. Who are these scientific simpletons trying to sell us this nonsense? They say: “Just count the calories, and exercise. We have ways to make plants and animals grow, we just need certain chemicals and various materials, the particular form doesn’t matter, just count the calories, you’ll be fine, stop worrying about all this trivia, but don’t forget to buy life insurance and health insurance – you never know when you might need them!!” I wonder what they tell their own children?

         6 likes

  21. Michael says:

    Just go to show how big money is trying with every thing they have to discount health living and make food cheaper so they make huge profits. Just think about it? Who can afford to go to Stanford? The wealthy! Why do we find this shocking? Who are their Alumni and major donors? Big business. The battle cry amongst the rich is keep or get rid of the middle class and keep them unhealthy and the super rich will prosper.

       14 likes

  22. Steven Castrechino says:

    USDA and it’s other agencies are robbing us of our god given liberty to produce our own non-GMO produce without their interference. This is an agency that should have never been created.

       7 likes

    • Michael says:

      The USDA was created to ensure clean food, which it did until republican deregulation and budget cuts
      eliminating inspectors gutted it. Oddly enough, these “reforms” were touted as advances and streamlining by agribusinesses which contributed heavily at vote-buying time. Oops, of course I meant
      campaign time.

         1 likes

  23. Suzanne says:

    I think the timing of this study is a harbiger of the misinformation campaign big agra is running to instill doubt into the general public on the benefits of organic in order to forward their agenda on GMO. I suspect we will be hearing a lot more stories like this in the coming months. Its a coordinated attempt to sway the American public against GMO labeling initative in California.

       14 likes

  24. Farmer Marie says:

    Are you surprised? I’m not. Know your farmer – they know their soil. We use a refractometer to monitor the health of ours and are working to build it up every single season. THAT’s how you get healthier, more nutritious and pesticide residue free foods.

    Dirty laundry is what they’ll tell you sells. I think they should try selling good news again for a change. They might be surprised at how many people actually tune in.

       6 likes

  25. Steven Esposito says:

    Thank you for this insightful and informative evaluation of this research study.

       3 likes

  26. Heather McLees-Frazier says:

    The media attention to that study is a travesty. Yet I have an issue with one comment in your article: that “by definition, organic foods cannot contain GMOs.” Since most crops in the US are pollinated by bees (and natural pollination is, in fact, one of the major goals of organic farming), and bees do not discriminate between organic and GM-planted fields, cross-pollination could result in “organic” fruits and vegetables that do contain GMOs. To my mind, the most important aspects of organic farming and the produce it–well, produces!–are the reduction in exposure to harmful chemicals, and the environmental impact of organic farming. GMO content is, unfortunately, out of our control at this point.

       5 likes

  27. vicki says:

    They also neglected to mention that the individuals conducting the study work for a corporation called Precision Health Economics and their major clients include the largest biotech company and a major pharmaceutical company.

       14 likes

  28. Tom Germain says:

    My main reason for sticking with organic is that a meta-study like this is bound to look more definitive than it actually is. As they say, better safe than sorry.

       2 likes

  29. Thank you very much for pointing out the weaknesses and media frenzy that followed the release of the Stanford study. It never ceases to amaze me that smart people can be so unintelligent at times. This type of study clearly shows the influence that pharmaceutical company funding can have on a place of higher learning.

    The quality of the food that goes into our bodies matters a great deal and is analogous to proper fuel for the type of engine your car has. If you put gasoline into a diesel engine or diesel fuel into a gasoline engine, the results would be disastrous. Similarly, putting chemical laden, nutrient deficient, GMO foods into our human form, will lead to health challenges. Eating natural, organic, nutritionally superior foods will provide the essential nutrients our bodies need to build and repair the trillions of cells we are made up of.

    The pharmaceutical industry wants to promote concepts that influence people to make poor choices so more drugs can be sold to treat the diseases and conditions caused by poor body function. It’s a travesty!

    Thanks again for your efforts to help create a healthy world.

       12 likes

  30. John Reiche says:

    It would really help my arguments when I try to present our case, (to the brain dead, media (NPR)influnced public) if you would site a few strong respectable studies supporting our position on nutreints and their affects on ageing and health.
    My mother for example will not take more than 1000mg D3 because her Dr told her not to and that her upper 30 levels are fine for her age (77). She has a double masters to her credit and I have no degree at all, so I don’t feel she believes that I could possibly have more knowledge or insite as to her proper dietary intake.
    She constantly throws up cases of friends, that even though they ate as healthy as possible, have preceded her to a younger, early demise. Or people who have tried natural cancer treatments after alopathic medicine failed them, and died any way. (I’m Sure you have heard all the arguments)
    I would love to send her this article, but without strong supporting evidence she would just pass it off as another conspiricy therorists babble.
    Thanks for your efforts,
    John

       4 likes

  31. Johnny Gregory says:

    Thanks for this very well-written rebuttal to last nights slanted and out of context “news”. If the media will look into your suggested corrections and do anything about it on air or in print it will signify a victory for truth, freedom and organic growing methods, and a move away from supporting the ag chemical industry.

       5 likes

  32. M. Campbell says:

    Only organic food hippies would see a study finding that their food isn’t nutritionally better and then blindly ignore that in favor of it stating that it MAY reduce exposure to pesticides. Organic pesticides are some of the most toxic known to man.

       2 likes

  33. Capitalism has it faults and even in Agriculture you need to “Follow the Money”.

       1 likes

  34. Cindy S says:

    It’s irresponsible of the media to report only what corporate owners and advertisers would like the public to hear, but that’s how it is. People who only watch TV or read a local paper, are severely uninformed. As soon as I heard this hogwash on the news, I knew it was junk science. The benefits of organic have been assaulted for years by the factory farming, and chemical, industries. Efforts to weaken legal meaning of the label, “organic,” too, have come from these industries. And most if not all well moneyed industries pretty much own the politicians. It is sad to see the disinformation and corruption in this country. I fear that the only way to reverse it is something our elected lawmakers will never go for; revoking corporate personhood and severing the ties between corporate donors and political campaign funds. As long as these special interests run the govt, we’ll never get honest news. The days of Woodward and Bernstein are over, the investigative journalists have been laid off, and “news” comes from industry press releases that papers and TV stations repeat like good little puppets.

       8 likes

  35. Carmen Redding says:

    I’ve always tried to buy organic as it just made sense to me.
    now that I’m a retiree, and can no longer afford
    Organic food, I try to eat less fruit and vegetables and
    No meat. I just hope I die before I develop some
    Kind of cancer. I just worry about my 2 children ,
    29 and 30 year olds who are unemployed and have
    No insurance. I fear for them…I knew we were headed
    For this corporate oligarchy. At least they know better
    and have decided not to bring children into this
    world to suffer like they are. I know if Mitt wins, we are all
    Doomed !
    I do appreciate all you do for us humane humans !

       3 likes

    • Jean Haskell says:

      Some fruits and vegatibles are ok to buy non-organic. There is a list on internet. Also you need meat. You can buy non-organic, just try to get as lean as possible, trim extra fat and don’t eat grilled meats. Also try to buy meat close to home. It is terrible trying to cut thru the hype between organic, natural, etc so I just try to use common sense, read a lot and eat a balanced diet and keep moving. Walking is great, just 10 or 15 minutes twice a day. I also pump iron three to four times a week. I am almost 70 and my doctor told me to “keep doing whatever you are doing, your blood pressure is that of a 20 yr old. I take no prescription drugs, am never sick, no arthritis or none of the stuff most people my age have.

         1 likes

  36. Terry Walker says:

    Thanks for this great analysis. We have been buying and eating organic for 5 years. I couldn’t believe the mis-information that the media was focusing on.

       3 likes

  37. DUGAN says:

    The news media was quick to pick this up and megaphone the “no nutritional difference” yea right everyone keep eating those pesticides herbicides and GMO foods, the cancers will get you anyway in the long run or genetic defects in the next gerneration, we won’t be here so eat up!! The Mass Media, now Stanford and the FDAA, coruption lining someones pockets… We are in need of some mass critical thinking, wake up! Don’t forget also the media is controlled by less than 6 major cartels today, its all entertainment with no accountability for content or truth.

       10 likes

  38. I heard the radio report saying the research had shown there was no advantage to taking organic foods. My immediate reaction was what had they researched? Was it the blood, the cholesterol, the blood vessels,the antioxidants; the nutrients, the energy levels , or just general health? The latter being ambiguous and not scientific in a short term test.
    So I blame the media again for loose, non scientific biased reporting.
    Unfortunately the general public hook on to such brief comments from the media.

       5 likes

  39. lynn lawler says:

    It is imperative that consumers who genuinely care about their health, take the time and educate themselves regarding the effects of GMO’s on their health, the environment and the WORST situation of GMO;s methodically succeeding heirloom(standard) varieties of the original foods that we have left. This is a serious situation, folks! And it could eventually leave us without food! I trust what comes from God and nature…NOT from man! Look what man has done to the planet in the short span of 200 years…and counting! Do you really want to trust your future and that of your children and their children to the corporate monster makers?? I eat all natural foods and have grown my own organically for over 40 years and I can tell you, there are definitely differences in the quality and nutritional content of organic food. Some, like mine, are super nutrified, others are products of “organic neglect”. Play it safe! Grow your own! It’s fun, easy and a workout with a purpose. It will make you a little better each day, instead of worse. Isn’t that something worth working toward??

       5 likes

  40. Granny Franny says:

    I remember reading a study years ago which focused on soil depletion of minerals. It explained how much more food one must eat to get the same nutritional value as in past years. IMO, it was important to understanding an important aspect of obesity today: one’s body is craving more food to gain the same health benefits as available in old fashioned family farm goods twenty years earlier. Obviously such a study wouldn’t be “cherry picked” for a meta analysis…I am curious who funded Stanford’s meta analysis since funding influences the study selections.

       2 likes

  41. Tim Webb says:

    You say that “herbicide residues on crops may be causing fertility problems”. I think you mean “may be adding slightly to the fertility destruction already being caused by GM crops”. This, I believe, is the overarching philosophy. Agenda 21, which has been official UN policy for a couple of decades now, seeks to cull the human population by whatever means necessary to a level of around 1/14 of present numbers. Accordingly therefore, we see individuals such as Bill Gates advocating these measures, investing in Monsanto stocks, and thereby supporting the GM poisoning of the population, as well as further advocating the mass sterilization of people via another Trojan Horse, the vaccination agenda. He has also been instrumental in providing sub-Saharan Africa with vast amounbts of “aid” in the form of AZT et al; whose effects are indistinguishable from those of another type of AID (s ). BPA, used to line all canned goods, is also a known hormone disrupter and male feminizer. We know that sperm count and viability is now at a level approximately 20% of values seen 50 years ago.
    Clearly, the wholly-owned media will promote any fiction seen to be supportive of the overall game plan.

       8 likes

Leave a Reply

Comment Policy:
ANH-USA provides a comment forum for our readers to share their constructive thoughts and criticisms about our newsletter articles and engage in civil debate with other readers. All comments are pre-moderated regardless of author. We never censor comments based on political or ideological point of view. We only remove those comments that are abusive, off-topic, use foul language, include personal attacks, or are otherwise discourteous and uncivil. Please do not post comments in ALL CAPS; on the internet this is considered "shouting."

 characters available

Follow us on...