Last week mainstream metier , including leaders like the New York Times , Washington Post , and NPR , were very flying to report verbatim , the refutable end of a Stanford University study,“Are Organic Foods Safer and Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives ? ” . Like sheep , the press has take part in a misinformation campaign intended to influence the outcome of California ’s Proposition 37 in November . You might have watch headlines like these : Stanford Scientists throw doubtfulness on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce(New York Times);Organic , established foods similar in nutrition , discipline finds(Washington Post);Why Organic Food May Not Be Healthier For You(NPR ) .
The Stanford field of study was write September 4 inThe Annals Of Internal Medicineand it has call for less than one week to blow it apart . lead astray conclusion , incorrect math , and now distrust financial ties to butt maker Phillip Morris , global food for thought processor Cargill , and GMO crop manufacturer Monsanto have throw off the study in a whole new brightness level , one of propaganda and misinformation .
The survey ’s timing is singular , as Proposition 37 is on the balloting in California this November and company like Cargill and Monsanto have a lot to recede if Prop 37 passes . The source of the report , Stanford University , is a venerated California institution , and the paper was published in a highly respect aesculapian diary , which is why the story got so much traction within days of its release .
suggestion 37 , Mandatory Labeling of Genetically organise Foodis a elector initiative which will :
Dr. Charles Benbrook , Ph.D. , last calendar week publish a reaction to the Stanford University study , “ Initial Reflections on theAnnals Of Internal MedicinePaper Are Organic Foods Safer and Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives ? A Systematic Review ” .
Benbrook is a scholar ’s learner of nutrient safety and factory farm . He worked in Washington , D.C. on agricultural insurance policy , science and regulative issues from 1979 through 1997 ; served on the Council for Environmental Quality for the Carter Administration ; was the Executive Director of the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture ; and was the Executive Director , Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences for seven years . Dr. Benbrook has a Ph.D. in agricultural political economy from the University of Wisconsin - Madison and an undergraduate degree fromHarvard University . He holds an adjuvant module position in the Crop and Soil Sciences Department , Washington State University .
In Benbrook ’s response , ( which has been get rid of from the site ) , he blasts the termination of the Stanford study as“ … flawed in several mode . The basic indicators used to compare the nutritional quality and safety of organic versus conventional food consistently minimize the magnitude of the differences reported in high quality , present-day peer - reviewed literature . ”and,“In its analysis , the team does not tap extensive , high - quality datum from the USDA and Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) on pesticide residue levels … perniciousness and dietetic risk … as well as a persuasive body of lit on the part of agricultural antibiotic economic consumption in trip the creation of new antibiotic - resistant strains of bacterium . ”
He also takes the Stanford team to project over their conclusion that organic food contain a “ 30 % low risk ” based on a complicated numerical normal referred to as ‘ RD ” , which Benbrook says makes niggling practical or clinical sense ( and a metric which appears to have been chosen to downplay the organic benefit ) .
The paper is fascinating and blow mammoth hollow in the Stanford study . Please translate it .
Stanford’s ties to Big Food and Big Tobacco
One also can not brush off the possible influence of Stanford ’s donors and Board Of Directors .
Dr. Ingram Olkin , chair of statistic and of didactics at Stanford is the author of the organic foods study . notice that Olkin is a professor of statistics and does not defend a degree in medication , solid food safety , agriculture , or any standardised field . Olkin ’s ties to Philip Morris engagement as far back as 1976 when PM fund Olkin ’s statistical research on pull out multiple final result from the same set of data . The research,“A subject Of The Models Used in the Analysis of Certain Medical Data ” , were used to mold doubtfulness on theFramingham Heart Studywhich named butt smoking as a leading cause of heart disease . Olkin ’s study was used to keep going articles in the press which minimize the adverse health issue of cigarette smoking .
Sitting on the Stanford Board Of Directors is Dr. George Poste , Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford ( a think - tank ) . Dr. Poste also serves on the Board of Directors of Monsanto , and the Scientific Advisory Board of Synthetic Genomics ( a troupe spearhead R&D in flora genomics , a.k.a . , GMO ’s ) .
Global food processorCargill pledged five million dollarsto fund Stanford ’s Center on Food Security and the Environment . A significant amount of inquiry done at FSE Stanford concerns the advancement of GMO crops in developing nations . Cargill lay down hundreds of products , among them creature provender , ethyl alcohol , and oil from grains ( such as canola oil oil ) . slap a “ control GMO ’s ” label on their consumer product might make a meaning economic impact .
There ’s no open validation that Cargill , Monsanto , Dr. Poste , or Synthetic Genomics directly influenced Dr. Olkin ’s resultant . But the ties are too snug to ignore .
The Stanford constitutive food for thought study is at best scientifically and statistically blemished , and at worst , misinformation intend to tempt the vote on Proposition 37 in California . It ’s a classic casing of media handling to protect the bottom line of credit of behemoth companies . The fear at these companies is that a successful Prop 37 open up the door to similar enterprise in other states and possibly at the FDA .
