organics

New York Times columnist says 'Stanford Study' bashing organics is totally flawed

Monday, October 22, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Tags: Stanford, organics, junk science

eTrust Pro Certified

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
BACK INTO THE CLOSET: Why U.S. reporters are not allowed to write about rainbow events in nations where being gay is still condemned
Depopulation test run? 75% of children who received vaccines in Mexican town now dead or hospitalized
INVESTIGATION: Three days before Dr. Bradstreet was found dead in a river, U.S. govt. agents raided his research facility to seize a breakthrough cancer treatment called GcMAF
A family destroyed: Six-month-old dies after clinic injects baby with 13 vaccines at once without mother's informed consent
BOMBSHELL: China and America already at war: Tianjin explosion carried out by Pentagon space weapon in retaliation for Yuan currency devaluation... Military helicopters now patrolling Beijing
Companies begin planting microchips under employees' skin
BAM! Chipotle goes 100% non-GMO; flatly rejecting the biotech industry and its toxic food ingredients
ECONOMIC SLAVERY FOR ALL: While we were distracted with the Confederate flag flap, Congress quietly forfeited our entire economic future via fast-track trade authority
McDonald's in global profit free fall as people everywhere increasingly reject chemically-altered toxic fast food
March Against Monsanto explodes globally... World citizens stage massive protests across 38 countries, 428 cities... mainstream media pretends it never happened
SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision may have just legalized the concealed carry of loaded firearms across all 50 states, nullifying gun laws everywhere
Vicious attack on Dr. Oz actually waged by biotech mafia; plot to destroy Oz launched after episode on glyphosate toxicity went viral
Nearly every mass shooting in the last 20 years shares one surprising thing? and it's not guns
Holistic cancer treatment pioneer Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez dies suddenly; patients mourn the loss of a compassionate, innovative doctor who helped thousands heal from cancer
Wild eyes and bowl cuts: Why do mass shooters always share the same hair styles and crazed zombie stares?
Genetically white woman now claims self-identify as black: If you can choose your gender, can you also choose your race? What about your species? Can a human claim to be a llama?
Mind control through emotional domination: How we're all being manipulated by the "crisis of the NOW"
Costco stops selling antibiotic laden chicken in response to consumer demand
Delicious
(NaturalNews) The conclusions arrived at in the infamous "Stanford study," which the mainstream media has been hyping up as "proof" that pesticide-ridden, conventional produce and meat products are basically the same as their organic alternatives, are flawed, says New York Times columnist Mark Bittman. In one of the few honest assessments of the study to emerge from a mainstream news source, a recent editorial written by Bittman explains that the Stanford study essentially compares apples to oranges, and misses the bigger picture as to why organic food is superior to conventional food.

Rather than carefully analyze the full implications of the 200-or-so existing studies they reviewed as part of their meta-analysis, Stanford researchers instead focused solely on an extremely limited scope of criteria in evaluating the potential nutritional differences between organic and conventional food, suggests Bittman. These researchers then extrapolated their incomplete assessment into a general ruling concerning organics, which suggests organic foods are not nutritionally superior to conventional foods.

Stanford study can't see the forest for the trees

To be fair, the Stanford study does explain that organic foods may contain fewer pesticide residues than conventional foods. It also highlights how organic milk is preferable to conventional milk, and that organic produce contains higher phosphorus levels than conventional produce. But the study's final declaration, which seems to discredit the overall value and benefit of organics, ignores these other findings, choosing instead to view the entire issue through the lens of strictly nutritional differences, which even from that angle led to a limited and incomplete conclusion.

"If I may play with metaphor for a moment, the study was like declaring guns no more dangerous than baseball bats when it comes to blunt-object head injuries," writes Bittman, illustrating how clueless the Stanford study researchers made themselves appear with their impotent assessment of organics. "It was the equivalent of comparing milk and Elmer's glue on the basis of whiteness."

To quote the words of Susan Clark, Executive Director of the Columbia Foundation, a human rights group, the Stanford study researchers "started with a narrow set of assumptions and arrived at entirely predictable conclusions." Even within the category of nutritional differences, which was their primary scope of comparison, Stanford researchers failed to evaluate the full scope of nutrients found in produce and meat, which falsely implies that there are no nutritional differences between organic and conventional foods.

Organic study that came to opposite conclusion largely ignored by mainstream media

Interestingly, a similar assessment by Kirsten Brandt of Newcastle University in the U.K., which included many of the same studies analyzed in the Stanford study, found quite the opposite concerning organics. According to Brandt's analysis, which was published in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences in 2011, organic produce actually contains far higher levels of secondary metabolites than does conventional produce. These secondary metabolites are believed to be largely combative against a wide range of chronic illnesses. (http://phys.org/news/2011-05-fruit-vegetables.html)

The takeaway from all this is that the Stanford study is largely deficient in its assessment of organics, which means the mainstream media has erred greatly, whether deliberately or out of ignorance, in its various declarations that organic food is a waste of money and effort. In reality, organic food continues to outpace conventional food in almost every way, a fact that even the Stanford study admits in spite of its erroneous conclusions.

Sources for this article include:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

Follow real-time breaking news headlines on
Stanford at FETCH.news
Join over four million monthly readers. Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time.
comments powered by Disqus
Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com by linking back to this article from your website

Permalink to this article:

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):

Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Colloidal Silver

Advertise with NaturalNews...

Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Advertise with NaturalNews...

GET SHOW DETAILS
+ a FREE GIFT

Sign up for the FREE Natural News Email Newsletter

Receive breaking news on GMOs, vaccines, fluoride, radiation protection, natural cures, food safety alerts and interviews with the world's top experts on natural health and more.

Join over 7 million monthly readers of NaturalNews.com, the internet's No. 1 natural health news site. (Source: Alexa.com)

Your email address *

Please enter the code you see above*

No Thanks

Already have it and love it!

Natural News supports and helps fund these organizations:

* Required. Once you click submit, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free registration. Your privacy is assured and your information is kept confidential. You may unsubscribe at anytime.