I first heard about a new Stanford "study" downplaying the value of organics when this blog headline cried out from my inbox: "Expensive organic food isn't healthier and no safer than produce grown with pesticides, finds biggest study of its kind."
What?
Does the actual study say this?
No, but authors of the study -- "Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review" -- surely are responsible for its misinterpretation and more. Their study actually reports that ¨Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."
The authors' tentative wording -- "may reduce" -- belies their own data: The report's opening statement says the tested organic produce carried a 30 percent lower risk of exposure to pesticide residues. And, the report itself also says that "detectable pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples...and 38% of conventional produce samples." Isn't that a greater than 80% exposure reduction?
In any case, the Stanford report's unorthodox measure "makes little practical or clinical sense," notes Charles Benbrook -- formerly Executive Director, Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences: What people "should be concerned about [is]... not just the number of [pesticide] residues they are exposed to" but the "health risk they face." Benbrook notes "a 94% reduction in health risk" from pesticides when eating organic foods.
Assessing pesticide-driven health risks weighs the toxicity of the particular pesticide. For example the widely-used pesticide atrazine, banned in Europe, is known to be "a risk factor in endocrine disruption in wildlife and reproductive cancers in laboratory rodents and humans."
"Very few studies" included by the Stanford researchers, notes Benbrook, "are designed or conducted in a way that could isolate the impact or contribution of a switch to organic food from the many other factors that influence a given individual's health." They "would be very expensive, and to date, none have been carried out in the U.S." [emphasis added].
In other words, simple prudence should have prevented these scientists from using "evidence" not designed to capture what they wanted to know.
Moreover, buried in the Stanford study is this all-critical fact: It includes no long-term studies of people consuming organic compared to chemically produced food: The studies included ranged from just two days to two years. Yet, it is well established that chemical exposure often takes decades to show up, for example, in cancer or neurological disorders.
Consider these studies not included: The New York Times notes three 2011 studies by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan that studied pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of an organophosphate pesticide. Once their children reached elementary school they "had, on average, I.Q.'s several points lower than those of their peers."
Thus, it is reprehensible for the authors of this overview to even leave open to possible interpretation that their compilation of short-term studies can determine anything about the human-health impact of pesticides.
What also disturbs me is that neither in their journal article nor in media interviews do the Stanford authors suggest that concern about "safer and healthier" might extend beyond consumers to the people who grow our food. They have health concerns, too!
Many choose organic to decrease chemicals in food production because of the horrific consequences farm workers and farmers suffer from pesticide exposure. U.S. farming communities are shown to be afflicted with, for example, higher rates of: "leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma" -- in addition to skin, lip, stomach, brain and prostate cancers," reports the National Cancer Institute. And, at a global level, "an estimated 3 million acute pesticide poisonings occur worldwide each year," reports the World Health Organization. Another health hazard of pesticides, not hinted at in the report, comes from water contamination by pesticides. They have made the water supply for 4.3 million Americans unsafe for drinking.
Finally, are organic foods more nutritious?
In their report, Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, and co-authors say only that "published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods." Yet, the most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing organic and non-organic, led by scientist Kirsten
Brandt, a Scientist at the Human Nutrition Research Center at the UK's Newcastle University found organic fruits and vegetables, to have on "average 12% higher nutrient levels."
Bottom line for me? What we do know is that the rates of critical illnesses, many food-related, are spiking and no one knows why. What we do know is that pesticide poisoning is real and lethal -- and not just for humans. In such a world is it not the height of irresponsibility to downplay the risks of exposure to known toxins?
Rachel Carson would be crying. Or, I hope, shouting until -- finally -- we all listen. "Simple precaution! Is that not commonsense?"
Follow Frances Moore Lappe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/fmlappe
Yes, that hard green pesticide/herbicide/fungicide/irradiated tomato is so much more tasty and healthier than this ripe/red/juicy/vibrant one. Uh huh....
Keep your nighttime spamming/hacking job, Monsanto.
Like:
What happens when the DNA in plants that are altered to make toxins to kill pests are introduced into human gut?
Isn't it true that altered DNA in proteins can pass on harmful information like Mad Cow disease does?
The bees are dying in great numbers. Doesn't that tell us something about the food we are eating?
Every major chef in the world will tell you that organic food tastes better. Why do you think that is?
Have lived surround by farmland for 25 years and have watched it happen.
The issue has never been about "nutrient" levels. It has always been about the cancer causing properties of Genetically Modified Foods -- at the cellular level. Secondly, about the toxic pesticides all over the GMO foods.
GMO foods are modified using mutated strains of cancer cells integrated into the food in order introduce foreign DNA. This is proven to increase cancer in any animal who consumes it.
It is already known that Colony Collapse is caused by these GMO seeds - and all of Europe is looking at Americans kids as guinea pigs for GMO food testing.
These GMO foods cause cancer in laboratory animals.
It has NEVER been about increased nutrient levels -- it's about NOT eating cancer molecules in GMO foods - and not eating toxic pesticides that leach into the produce through it's skin.
GMO foods cause cancer -- it's not about the nutrients. It's not even about the flavor and quality - it's about Monsanto and it's ilk feeding us cancerous foods.
The price increase is small for peace of mind - especially since there are no long term studies on children eating this GMO garbage and pesticide soup over any duration.
Well, not well....
An increasing number of studies show the risk of GM food consumption - directly through produce as well as in livestock fed with GM foods. These are in addition to the direct links to Colony Collapse Disorder - at the same time Monsanto is buying up the research firms that initially made the discoveries and 'blew the whistle'. For example, Monsanto bought out the largest Bee Research Firm that first discovered the cause for colony collapse being Monsanto modified seeds. They run their own 'research' and fund university level field work. It is extremely tough to spread the word against such a gargantuan, well funded, highly organized foe.
http://naturalsociety.com/stanford-organic-study-big-tobaccos-anti-science-propaganda/
Wait a minute, isn't this already done, compare life expectancy today compared to 200 years ago when all food was effectively organic. That is subject to disease, low yield, and rotted quickly due to minimal preservatives.
Organic food fans are just a bunch of Luddites.
Mick
(Incidentally, neither conventional nor organic produce today contains preservatives. Congrats on totally missing the issue. =P)
(Incidentally, do you really think your 'fresh' food gets to you after being produced months before, sprayed with pesticides to ensure a good crop, green picked, irradiated to kill germs, ripened in a warehouse, non oxygen environments etc. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_preservation to see a good sample of what can happen to your food before you get it)
Yes they do.......it's mainly caused by wheat. Wheat has changed over the years. No doubt GMOs and pesticides also have something to do with it.
farmers grow no such thing as GMO wheat
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/02/wheat-is-not-genetically-modified/
There are so many reasons why this study is interpreted and promoted the way it is. As long as we keep the information being discussed, we have a chance to clear up some issues.
I would like to say "let the non convinced eat their poisons", unfortunately their poisons are my poisons. Although my main concern for eating all organic is my health, I am extremely concerned with the health of the planet. Rodale is doing wonderful studies on the health and productivity of organic soil. I also care about the health of my fellow man who work in those environments increasing their and their offspring's risk of cancer.
I would also rebut the toxicologist below that we can not feed the planet organically. Economist Jeffery Sachs plans for feeding Africa have not proved successful compared to African elders when given some small amount of resources. That is a very generalized assessment of information in "Deadly Monopolies" by Harriet A. Washington
The California GMO ballot is extremely important to all of us who care about our health, and there are a lot of monied interests against us. Plse go to ANH-USA.org. if you want to help.
The reason I eat organic produce is the damage done to the atmosphere, the soil, farm workers, beneficial insect populations, rivers and lakes by petro-chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. That damage is severe. I eat organic having made an informed choice between an increased risk to my family's health versus the common good. Give factual information and trust other people to make the same decision, or get congress pass legislation to restrict use of chemicals on cropland.
With no till/GMO beans it's plant then two spray passes of Roundup and done. with organic it's plow-disc-drag-plant-cultivate-cultivate-cultivate and then done. Which uses more fuel and pollutes the air and water more? I will tell you: ORGANIC
The only reason so-called "conventional" (read industrial ag) likes no till is because they use it with synthetic pesticides.
Many organic farmers are able to use no till especially as advances in techniques and machinery have been made using winter cover crops strategically to handle weeds instead of synthetic pesticides.
Don't even try to make a case that organic pollutes more.
I've not heard this argument before and it's very interesting to me. So, just to be clear, you're saying that producing organic food is more resource-intensive (high carbon footprint, more water consumption) than food cultivated with pesticides. Do you know of any comprehensive cost benefit analyses looking into this? I'm pretty swayed by the health risks of non-organics, particularly to the farm workers and the environment, but I am concerned about resource consumption as well. Thanks for any further thoughts...
The study's co-author, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an "anti-science" propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.
The following document shows financial ties between Philip Morris and Ingram Olkin http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/22205.html
Olkin worked with Stanford University to develop a "multivariate" statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics. This research was a key component in Big Tobacco's use of anti-science to attack whistleblowers and attempt to claim cigarettes are perfectly safe.
LOOOOOL, you must not be a math person Huffy. Let me translate for you. Multivariate means dealing with more than out outcome variable. Statistical means dealing with statistics. And an algorithm is a method to compute or determine something in a methodical way. You betray your extreme ignorance on the issue when you claim that a multivariate statistical algorithm = lying with statistics.
Also, good thing Olkin is just a statistician and not the main author or the person mainly responsible for this paper. That would be Crystal Smith-Spangler, who is the clinician with interest on this topic.