Originally published September 23 2012
Sign the petition to retract the junk science attack on organics
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The recent attack on organic food by researchers from Stanford University has sent shock waves of confusion throughout society, which is why NaturalNews.com has decided to partner with NaturalSociety.com to officially set the record straight. The two groups have established a new petition at Change.org that seeks to have the infamous Stanford study officially retracted, as it is truly nothing more than a heap of "junk" science built on lies and fraud.
You can access and sign the petition here: http://www.change.org
Published earlier this month in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine (http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685), a review entitled Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review began grabbing headlines in practically every mainstream news outlet because it appeared to conclude that organic food is identical to conventional and genetically-modified (GM) food.
Though the study actually concluded that eating organic food can indeed reduce exposure to toxic pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, it simultaneously insinuated that there is no evidence proving that organic food is any more nutritious than conventional food. And based on this claim, the conventional media began parading ridiculous headlines like "Organic Food Doesn't Get Scientific Endorsement, But Shoppers Don't Seem To Care," and "Organic Food Has Little Health Impact, Study Says."
The media hammered organics so hard in the days following the study's release that some members of the natural health community even began questioning whether or not organic food was really worth the extra cost and added effort. After all, based on these and other headlines following the study's release, it seemed as though the issue was settled, and that organics are nothing more than an expensive fad that caters to all those wealthy "narcissists." (http://www.naturalnews.com/037121_organics_disinfo_New_York_Times.html)
Stanford study is corporate propaganda, plain and simpleWhat the public was not told; however, is that the Stanford study was funded and launched by corporations with a vested interest in maligning organics. The impetus behind the study's erroneous conclusions were also hatched by statistical "liar" Ingram Olkin, a former Big Tobacco lackey that possesses an expertise in massaging data to reach a preconceived conclusion, in this case the conclusion that organics are supposedly useless.
These and other pertinent details about the Stanford study were not of much interest to the corporate media, but they are extremely important to us here at NaturalNews, which is why we are now petitioning Stanford to retract the study. Since the mainstream media decided to simply amplify the study's findings without investigating them to see if they were actually true, the integrity of organics has taken a significant hit.
Our goal is to reach 10,000 signatures on the petition as soon as possible in order to show Stanford that we are not going to sit idly by while it publishes industry propaganda as if it were fact. Though not perfect, organic food continues to remain the gold standard for solid nutrition as it cannot legally contain GMOs, synthetic pesticides, and various other toxins that are present in conventional food, an undeniable fact with which no credible scientist can argue.
Be sure to read through the petition for more information, and sign it if you agree:
You can also read a more through review of why the Stanford study fails to meet the criteria for a credible study: http://www.naturalnews.com
Sources for this article include:
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml