September 22, 2014

New Junk Science Study Dismisses Nutritional Value of Organic Foods

pin it button New Junk Science Study Dismisses Nutritional Value of Organic Foods

images 300x161 New Junk Science Study Dismisses Nutritional Value of Organic Foods

by Alliance for Natural Health

You’d think Stanford would be above such sloppy research. You’d be wrong.

Stanford University researchers conducted a meta-analysis (a selection and summary) of seventeen studies in humans and 230 field studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in unprocessed foods (e.g., fruits, vegetables, grains, milk, eggs, chicken, pork, and meat).

The study, published yesterday in The Annals of Internal Medicine, concluded that “the published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

The media, of course, pounced on the first part of the conclusion and reported it with their usual ferocity, but in many instances completely ignored the second part. In fact, their headlines would lead you to believe there is no benefit to organic foods at all: “Stanford Scientists Cast Doubts on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce” (New York Times); “Organic Food is Not Healthier than Conventional Produce” (Huffington Post); “Study Questions How Much Better Organic Food Is” (Houston Chronicle); “Organic, Conventional Foods Similar in Nutrition, Safety, Study Finds” (Washington Post). Even Stanford’s ownpress release says, “Little Evidence of Health Benefits of Organic Food, Stanford Study Finds.”

What the study actually said was that they didn’t find “significant” or “robust” differences in nutritional content between organic and conventional foods, though they found that organic food had 30% less pesticide residue. Even though the pesticide levels fall within the safety guidelines set by the Environmental Protection Agency, it should be noted that the health effects of the pesticides are cumulative, and that what we would consider safe might not align with the EPA! For example, as we noted two weeks ago, herbicide residue on GMO crops may be causing fertility problems. Organophosphate exposure can lead to pre-term births, and both ADHD and lower IQs in children, according to several studies from leading universities.

The Stanford study also noted that the risk for ingesting antibiotic-resistant bacteria was 33% higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork. Remember our piece on “superbugs”? USDA routinely justifies irradiating or sterilizing food because of such food safety concerns, as we noted last week—and this study essentially proves that organics do not need to be sterilized because they are in fact so much safer.

The meta-analysis also found that organic produce contains higher levels of phosphorus, and that organic chicken contains higher levels of vaccenic acid and more organic phenols, which have antioxidant and anti-cancer effects. A few studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3s fatty acids.

What the Stanford study didn’t mention is that by definition, organic foods cannot contain GMOs, so they are far healthier than conventional foods. Even though the biotech industry keeps saying GMO is “safe” and equal to non-GMO crops, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Organic farming is also healthier for the environment because it does not employ large-scale factory farming conditions (not to mention being more humane toward the animals being raised for meat).

Charles Benbrook, PhD, a professor of agriculture at Washington State University and former chief scientist at The Organic Center who reviewed the Stanford study and most of the underlying literature, found the study misleading. He noted that several well-designed US studies show that organic crops have higher concentrations of antioxidants and vitamins than conventional crops. For crops like apples, strawberries, grapes, tomatoes, milk, carrots, and grains, organic produce has 10 to 30 percent higher levels of several nutrients, including vitamin C, antioxidants and phenolic acids in most studies.

As the Environmental Working Group notes, the Stanford study also contradicts the findings of what many consider the most definitive analysis in the scientific literature of the nutrient content of organic versus conventional food. In that 2011 study, a team led by Dr. Kirsten Brandt of the Human Nutrition Research Center of Newcastle University in the UK analyzed most of the same research and concluded that organic crops had approximately 12 to 16 percent more nutrients than conventional crops.

Critics were quick to point out flaws in the Stanford study’s methodology as well.

First, meta-analysis (that is, examining a large number of studies for commonalities) does not allow for the nuances and range of each of the studies—such as differences in testing methods, geography, and farming methods. There are a wide variety of different organic farming practices, and any given sample of food will reflect the soil in which it is grown. Chinese soil, for example, is notoriously deficient in selenium, and this carries through to the food. This makes it very hard to generalize based on an overview of a wide variety of studies.

Second, when researchers select studies for meta-analysis, they are free to cherry-pick whichever ones they like—and leave out any that might not support their conclusions. For example, a 2010 study by scientists at Washington State University found that organic strawberries contained more vitamin C than conventional ones. Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, a member of the Stanford team, said that this strawberry study was erroneously left out of the analysis, but that she doubted it would have changed the conclusions when combined with thirty-one other studies that also measured vitamin C!

What this comment completely omitted is that the chemicals used to treat non-organic strawberries are considered to be among the most dangerous. So arguing about the exact amount of vitamin C in the fruit ignores the main point that conventional strawberries are especially to be avoided because of contamination by a recognized poison.

Third, there was no long-term study of the health effects on humans of consuming organic foods versus conventional foods. The duration of the human studies ranged from two days to two years. Most of the health effects will take a lot longer than that to show up.

So once again we have the media trumpeting the most shocking tidbit as if it were representative of the entire study, and leaving out the most important findings—that organic foods are far safer in terms of pesticide content, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and GMOs. The media also didn’t bother doing a critical analysis of the study’s methodology and rarely even offered a fair presentation of what the study’s critics had to say.

ANH-USA will be contacting each media outlet and asking for a correction to be published. We won’t hold our breath. As our readers know, Big Food Companies, like Big Pharma companies, are Big Advertisers, and the conventional media seems to tailor its stories accordingly.

Read the full article and comment here: http://www.anh-usa.org/new-junk-science-study-dismisses-nutritional-value-of-organic-foods/

 


0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Making Your Own Fermented Berry Sauce

Making Your Own Fermented Berry Sauce

Pin It

With summer winding down, we are often finding ourselves surrounded by fruits and vegetables that need to be used up. The farmer’s markets are overflowing and perhaps our own backyard is giving up its own abundance.

There are many ways to preserve berries. Processing berries at home has a few distinct advantages. For one, you get to control the ingredients. Starting with organic berries is crucial and a huge improvement over most store-bought conventional jams and spreads.

Beyond making jam from your organically-sourced fruit, fruit sauce is another option. We are familiar with applesauce which is made by cooking peeled apples down into a thick sauce-like consistency. This can then be canned and stored away for winter.

This fermented fruit sauce is different from the familiar applesauce in that it is raw, never cooked, and imbued with a starter culture which adds enzymes and probiotics. So, the nutrients of the berries are left intact when they might otherwise be lost in the cooking process, and the naturally occurring bacteria, enzymes, and vitamins in the berries are allowed to proliferate through the fermentation process.

Grassfed Traditions Adds New Artisan Butters from Grass-fed Milk

Grassfed Traditions Adds New Artisan Butters from Grass-fed Milk

Pin It

Tropical Traditions announced two new lines of artisan butters crafted from the milk of grass-fed pastured cows in their GrassfedTraditions line of products. Allgäu pure German Butter is from family farms in the Allgäu region of Southern Germany. These families feed their cows only grass and grass hay. Using their local breed, the Allgäu brown cow, the herdsmen in the Allgäu mountain region safely guide the cows down from the mountains to spend the winters in their cozy barns, and are led back up to the Alps every spring.

Nordic Creamery is family owned and operated making some of Wisconsin’s finest gourmet, artisan butter from the milk of cows on pasture. Award-winning Cheesemaker and Buttermaker Al Bekkum and his family live on the Bekkum-Langaard Farmstead owned and operated by their family since immigration from Norway in 1917. The farm is located among other Norwegian settlers in Westby, Wisconsin within Vernon County’s lush, green hills and valleys known as the Coulee Region. This un-glaciated land is recognized for its fertile soil and exceptional grazing land making their butter second to none.

These butters are shipped in coolers to all 50 states.

Study to Look at High Fat Diet’s Effect on Parkinson’s Patients

Study to Look at High Fat Diet’s Effect on Parkinson’s Patients

Pin It

The National College of Natural Medicine in Portland Oregon is teaming up with a local hospital to study the effects of the low-carb high-fat ketogenic diet on Parkinson’s patients. We have reported in the past how Parkinson’s sufferers have experienced relief when consuming large amounts of coconut oil.

Is a Low-Carb Diet Ruining Your Health?

Is a Low-Carb Diet Ruining Your Health?

Pin It

Chris Kresser is a practitioner of functional and integrative medicine and a licensed acupuncturist who blogs and is a very popular writer. A nutritionist on his staff, Laura Schoenfeld, caused quite a controversy recently with a blog post titled: Is a Low-Carb Diet Ruining Your Health?

The low-carb “paleo” diet followers have reached a cult-like following in recent times, and it seems Schoenfeld had crossed a “holy” line in suggesting that not everyone does well on a low-carb diet. Many in the “paleo” diet crowd believe that carbohydrates have no place in human nutrition at all.

Schoenfeld gave reasons from her own clinical practice as to why she feels not everyone does well on a low-carb diet, and listed several types of people that seem to do better with at least a moderate amount of carbohydrates in their diet.

The article generated so many comments, that Kresser added his own blog post to the topic: 7 Things Everyone Should Know About Low-Carb Diets.

20 Amazing Health Benefits of Tomatoes That Should Make Them A Daily Staple In Your Diet

20 Amazing Health Benefits of Tomatoes That Should Make Them A Daily Staple In Your Diet

Pin It

Just one serving a day of tomato-based foods can have an incredibly beneficial effect on your health. Not only can they reduce heart disease, but they could potentially prevent and reverse dozens of diseases if eaten daily. This is one fruit you don’t want to leave out of your diet.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!