Did you see the recent Stanford study that stated that there were no significant differences between organic and non-organic food from a nutritional or health risk standpoint? Many are calling this junk science. To understand that report better, we need to look at where Stanford receives its funding as well as relevant facts excluded from their study.
First, the study was a meta-analysis. This is research where the author picks and chooses from other studies to produce the results that they want. While it was a comprehensive review, the results and conclusions were managed carefully.
Charles Benbrook, Ph.D of Washington State University found that the study to be at best misleading.
Start with what the study excluded. The analysis did not consider the effects of the irradiation on non-organic foods. Irradiated food reduces nutritional values and exposes consumers to numerous health risks. The analysis excluded genetically engineered foods (GEs) or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as there is no organic equivalent. The study also discounted the affect of pesticides on the consumer as well as the environment. Pesticides build up in the body and lead to numerous health problems including cancer, ADHD, infertility and birth defects.
It was written by a team led by Dena Bravata of the Stanford Center for Health Policy. Bravata also is the chief medical officer of Castlight Health, a company that works for Kraft Foods. Other companies like Cargill, Monsanto, Big Pharma, Goldman Sachs and many Fortune 500 companies fund the Stanford Center.
In truth, organic foods have between 15-30% higher nutritional value without the harmful effects of irradiation or herbicides.
This study was about Proposition 37, the California ballot initiative that would force the labeling of GEs and GMOs on the foods we eat. It should be no surprise that companies who profit from the current state of affairs are funding junk studies like this in order to confuse consumers. www.ShareKitchen.org
