Breaking News

The Gaping Hole In The Stanford Organic Food Study

(AP Photo/Dan Gill)

There’s an old saying, “Figures lie and liars figure.” I took an interesting course during my college years about statistics and research studies. What I found out was that statistics can be used in many different ways to accomplish a desired outcome.

A lot of articles have been written about the Stanford study on organic food. One author of the study, Dena Bravata, MD, said, in part, “There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health.”

Let’s explore that a little further, shall we?

On Food Nation Radio Network, we’ve talked about the reasons you should buy organic food and/or food that is not genetically modified. Since there is currently no labeling mandate for genetically modified foods, the only way to ensure a food is not a GMO is to buy organic. We did a compelling, shocking interview with one of the leading authorities on this subject, detailing the health risks of genetically modified foods. It was focused on corn: New Study Shows GM Corn Is Dangerous

And by the way, there’s a reason no human studies have been published on genetically modified food consumption in the United States. The interview above was based upon a French study recently released. There is also research available from other parts of Europe and from Canada. The reason for the lack of studies in the U.S. is the GMO seed companies won’t allow their seeds to be used for studies.

Why? That’s a very good question.

Is it incredibly irresponsible and a danger to public health for Stanford University to make a blanket statement that all conventional foods have the same nutritional value as organic foods, without specifically addressing genetically modified foods? GMOs are found in over 70 percent of processed foods in this country.

Specifically, the new Arctic (non browning) Apple which is poised for approval in front of the FDA right now, may have issues with how vitamins and antioxidants are absorbed by humans due to its genetic modification. You can read about that and hear our interview with Professor Joe Cummins here: The Arctic Apple .

Why isn’t that addressed? Again, that’s a very good question.

Americans have lots of questions about our food supply, and only seem to receive pre-packaged answers that don’t explore all the influences on what we take home to our families.

Is that by design? That’s probably the most important question.

Stanford University confirmed that no genetically modified foods were included in the studies.

Elizabeth Dougherty has been a food writer for over 10 years, attended culinary school and holds a Bachelor’s degree, Magna Cum Laude in Hospitality, Business and Labor Relations from NYIT. She has been a talk show host of nearly 150 episodes of Food Nation Radio which airs each Saturday afternoon at 4 on WWBA AM820 News and  other stations. You can read her articles and hear previous shows on her podcast page on the Food Nation Radio Network website and on Facebook.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Joe L says:

Again Ty, you’re wasting that precious God-given gift of a 160 IQ. To suggest the researchers may have done this study in their spare time is ludicrous. To imply that “university funding” means anything is also absurd. If if either one of these possibilities was the case, it would not preclude external influence or motive. Logic my dear, gifted friend.

Oh, and your abundant abuse of the author would seem to indicate that your IQ has had a negative effect on your social capacities. You may want to have that checked, IQ isn’t everything.

Joe L says:

Ty, with an IQ of 160, you should be able to spot several logical flaws in the study mentioned herein, and more especially in the conclusions drawn.

Elizabeth Dougherty says:

And by the way, why do you have do advertise your IQ (if that’s what it really is)? I’m a member of Mensa and I don’t feel the need to put that in my online profiles.

Elizabeth Dougherty says:

I actually talked to the Medical Center at Stanford about their study and what was included in it. Maybe you ought to do that.

TyroneJ says:

They didn’t explicitly call sort out GM foods. Of the 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods used in the Annals of Internal Medicine article, GM foods were in the “conventional” mix as they were not explicitly excluded from it. You might try reading the actual paper before commenting on it.

“Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review”, Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS; Margaret L. Brandeau, PhD; Grace E. Hunter, BA; J. Clay Bavinger, BA; Maren Pearson, BS; Paul J. Eschbach; Vandana Sundaram, MPH; Hau Liu, MD, MS, MBA, MPH; Patricia Schirmer, MD; Christopher Stave, MLS; Ingram Olkin, PhD; and Dena M. Bravata, MD, MS, Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:348-366

Elizabeth Dougherty says:

Organic vs conventionally grown foods incorporates ALL food. How is that limited in scope? Is that a ridiculous argument to make? They simply chose to ignore what has become a valid consideration when looking at organic vs conventional and it has not gone without notice. If you know anything about controls in studies, it basically invalidates the entire “study” which was based upon looking at other studies they decided to select.

TyroneJ says:

GM wasn’t addressed because the study, like all studies, was limited in scope. In this case, it was limited to looking at nutritional content of organic vs conventionally grown foods.

It’s called “Science” because it’s evidence based, not opinion based.