Debunked: Ridiculous Study Claims Organic Same as Conventional

Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society / Video Report
Published: Tuesday 4 September 2012
“Overall, it seems quite apparent that the researchers really have no idea what the word ‘health’ entails.”

The latest study to demonize foods free of GMO ingredients and mercury-containing high-fructose corn syrup ultimately once again fails to accurately address key aspects of the conventional verses organic debate and even falls short of properly addressing the limited scope of concerns it does attempt to analyze. You can see even from the comments on many of the mainstream reports that readers quickly saw through the eroneous ‘organic is the same as conventional’ headlines and began highlighting the many inaccuracies of the research.

As I outline in the video, the study completely fails to account for key factors such as the presence of GMOs, artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose, mercury (such as that admittedly contained in high-fructose corn syrup), BPA, and much more. It also does not even properly address the two topics it seeks to address concerning the presence antibiotics and chemical residue. The researchers fail first of all to reveal the difference between the organic food and conventional food pesticides, and then go on to state that organic food actually does have lower pesticide levels.

They then state that it doesn’t matter that conventional foods have higher pesticide, herbicide, and insecticide levels because they don’t ‘exceed legal limits’. They then fail to mention that Roundup, Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide, has been linked to DNA damageinfertility, and over 29 other associated diseases. Yet they insist that there is no real difference. That is not even taking into consideration the thousands of other studies on pesticides and insecticides, such as the 3 pieces of mainstream peer-reviewed research linking pesticide exposure to lower IQ.

Apparently these factors don’t matter to the Stanford researchers, who utterly ignored them as they compiled their analysis that actually contradicts itself over and over again.

The report also admittedly states that organic foods have a drastically lower percentage chance of containing antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the kind that produces mutant superbugs that cannot be treated with antibiotics. The very same kind that have evaded all antibiotics and ‘super drugs’ and are virtually untreatable by mainstream medicine. A new strain of resistant tuberculosis known as the ‘white plague‘ has even started to spread that is the result of rampant antibiotic use across the globe.

Conventional farm animals are dosed up with these antibiotics to prevent them from dying as a result of the serious illnesses they come down with. The animals are stricken from both eating a poor diet often full of genetically modified grain as well as sitting stationary in a claustrophobic area for years. Around 30% of cows in the United States are also injected with Monsanto’s genetically modified synthetic hormone known as rBGH, which is banned in 27 countries worldwide. Apparently the fact that the genetically engineered rBGH uses molecules and DNA sequences that are the result of molecular cloning doesn’t matter to the Stanford researchers.

The list could go on and on. Overall, it seems quite apparent that the researchers really have no idea what the word ‘health’ entails. While even the very few aspects they examine seem to heavily favor organic food items, the hundreds of other essential factors are wildly overlooked in the report that does nothing but push back the general public’s notion of what true health is by about 30 years.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
Author pic
ABOUT Anthony Gucciardi

Anthony is an accomplished investigative journalist whose articles have appeared on top news sites and have been read by millions worldwide. A health activist and researcher, Anthony’s goal is informing the public as to how they can use natural methods to revolutionize their health, as well as exploring the behind the scenes activity of the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.

Top Stories

16 comments on "Debunked: Ridiculous Study Claims Organic Same as Conventional"

Michele Jacobson

September 06, 2012 5:56am

Thanks for posting this video report, Anthony. In my book, I actually cited 3 studies which supported the superior nutritional values of organic fruits and vegetables. One of these studies was on the increased nutritional value of organic strawberries, which, the Stanford researcher claims, was "erroneously left out."
Another point I would like to make is that organic meats should not be interpreted as the gold standard. These animals are not consuming a natural diet, simply organic feed. For optimum health benefits, one should seek out grass-fed or free-range meats and poultry.
Re: GMOs, I agree with you 100%. For those who have limited knowledge of such, I would like to post this article: http://www.nutritionprescription.biz/gmos.html

Michele Jacobson
Certified Clinical Nutritionist
www.nutritionprescription.biz

JKZ

September 05, 2012 12:24pm

Please read the actual review paper!!!!!! I finally found it, but not with the help of the biased media.

There is no relevance to "high fructose corn syrup" they did not look at processed foods! It was a review - not a ridiculous study. This is a ridiculous article.... What paper are you all reading? The actual one can be found here: http://annals.org/data/Journals/AIM/24808/0000605-201209040-00007.pdf

Anyone who wants a copy, please contact me.

Norman Allen's picture
Norman Allen

September 04, 2012 7:59pm

I read the article and was surprised by the assertion that there is no difference in the pesticide laden, hormonized to the max, GMO food and natural/organic food. I hope third party objective sources shed much needed light on the subject.

Kootenay Coyote

September 04, 2012 6:43pm

It should be obvious that health depends upon uncontaminated foods. Why should it be a surprise that organic foods offer ordinary nourishment? No one expects exceptional performance from them: only that they be healthy themselves & free of pesticides & other pollutants. As for those who excuse the study as a survey of studies: should this prevent the researchers (& reviewers are researchers, if they work in any scholarly sense) from commenting on the impact of incomplete information? It is a standard scholarly practice to point out areas for further study. So one has to question the motivation, intelligence & ethics of the researchers: & possibly their funding source, too.

Zephyrgirl

September 04, 2012 3:31pm

Anthony's article is right on the mark! It is concise, informative and so what if he didn't tell us the authors, etc., that's why you have a computer-----I found much info on the Stanford nonsense on which they wasted their time, because they're obviously in the pockets of big pharma, big ag, etc., in just a minute!

Ladypenelope is right on, and as for you nitpickers, you should be grateful that you're getting good reporting like this on Nation of Change rather than picking on such relatively unimportant things such as who is the culprit, the Stanford researchers or the articles they analyzed. I am a scientist also, and I find it extremely important to immediately reveal and question studies like this today. The whole thing smells rotten; perhaps Stanford and their research funders felt that the timing for this sort of "study" was just right before the GMO labeling fight in California only about two months away!

So much precious time is wasted on supposed "research," meanwhile, good ole common sense is in very short supply. Forget the research-----common sense tells us that man was not meant to feast on chemicals! No one would even be having this absolutely absurd argument were it not for the chemical companies and the huge profits involved. Remember, comparatively, there is very little money to be made in farming with common sense, that is, organically.

JKZ

September 04, 2012 4:10pm

It wasn't "research" it was a "review". In science, that is a big difference. The authors did exactly what anyone with a brain would have done in such a review - they looked at the research, but IT WAS MISSING.

Rentzell

September 04, 2012 1:15pm

I'll take mine without GMO's , thank you.

adreake

September 04, 2012 11:09am

Unfortunately, this article contains zero information for one to consider and make an informed decision. Like earlier commenters noted, this sounds like a rant, rather than a report. I listened to some coverage of this on NPR this morning, and they made a good point - going organic isn't solely about health. It's also about the environment and supporting a local economy (unless you buy organic shipped in from across the world...) I too believe that organic food is healthier than that which is not. There is so much that remains unknown about modified food - I would prefer to avoid it when possible and support local farms, etc at the same time. I'm curious about what this study is really all about. So far, all I've heard/read sounds biased and uninformed, one way or another.

campy2009

September 04, 2012 11:08am

Who buys organic for nutrition, people buy organic so they don't have to ingest pesticides, herbicides, all those chemicals.

aspalt

September 04, 2012 11:07am

The study is seriously flawed, OK, ridiculous. But the statement that prevention of disease is the main reason large quantities of antibiotics are fed to animals in industrial production (CFO's) is not correct. They are added to increase weight gain, not for therapeutic effect. Do some animals get sick? yes. Are they treated? usually. But all are fed antibiotics for rapid weight gain. This unwise and unhealthy practice is NOT allowed in organic production.

JKZ

September 04, 2012 10:22am

OK - it seems as though the "report" was really part of a poster session at a conference for the Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM), see: http://smdm.confex.com/smdm/2012az/webprogram/Paper7295.html

It was not new research, rather a meta-analysis of research that has been conducted before. What this means is that the authors pooled all papers they could find on the topic and used statistical methods to group their results. These 'bad' Stanford folks were only reporting on research that has been done before. Obviously previous research has missed a few things. For instance I read research article that only looked at the differences in sugar and protein content, while failing to account for trace nutrients etc. This is the sort of report that was contained in their meta-analysis. They (evil Stanford researchers) did nothing wrong, they just reported on others' biased research, usually funded by folks with an agenda.

So please, before you write an article about 'research' please read the research article, poster, etc. that you are writing about. Oh, and Nation of Change, if you want a science journalist, I may have some time and access to full research articles (not just news stories about them). I found this account appallingly uninformed and uninformative. The point is not that these Stanford researchers missed something, but that the articles they analysed missed something. Now I am off to try to get funding for a spectrometer so I can do a real organic vs. conventional analysis - among other things ; )

swrickett

September 04, 2012 10:07am

In my morning newspaper the same schlock was peddled. It was an associated press piece that rambled about veges and meats interchangeably and quoted the Stanford report. What are those people doing there anyway?
I've contacted writers about such dubious reporting at my newspaper and two out of three emails came back and two others were never acknowledged, including a letter to the editor using the stated specifications, 300 words etc. Apparently one cannot even write letters anymore to challenge these poorly reported stories, let alone an editorial.

JKZ

September 04, 2012 10:19am

Isn't it atrocious?

JKZ

September 04, 2012 9:59am

Although I appreciate the sentiment of this article, I find it really misses some facts. It does not even tell us what journal the original research was published in, nor the names of the authors, etc. - so we do not even know how to find the article and make out own decisions. As a scientist, who publishes, I think that this should be some of the first information presented in such an article, along with something about the scale and scope of the research (what did they test? from where? who funded it? etc.). Without this sort of information, it seems like an irrelevant rant! So now, I am going to try to find this mystery research paper and draw my own conclusions.

PSzymeczek

September 04, 2012 9:34am

I saw this on the local news last night and said, "Huh?"

ladypenelope

September 04, 2012 9:48am

Perhaps the reason that this questionable study is what you saw on the local news...unfortunately, there is no longer unbiased local news because the news is owned by CORPORATE sponsors and WE THE PEOPLE are BEING KEPT FROM SCIENTIFIC FACTS, except for the slanted facts Monsanto will allow on the air waves and in print, in spite of the fact that the future of our food chain and planet is most likely at stake !!!! Fact: tomatoes no longer have flavor, but they transport well...thanks to genetic engineering!!! FACT!!