FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "Not surprisingly, the study's glaring errors, both in understanding the important and complex differences between organic and conventional foods and in the researchers' flawed choice of research methods, prompted organic advocates to look closely at financial ties between Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute, which supports the researchers, and the chemical and agribusiness industry."

Corporate front groups are fighting to make sure you don't know what is in your food. (photo: Lightspring/shutterstock.com)
Corporate front groups are fighting to make sure you don't know what is in your food. (photo: Lightspring/shutterstock.com)


Big Ag Allegedly Funded Stanford's "Spin" on Organics Study

By The Cornucopia Institute

14 September 12

 

Scientists Tied to Tobacco Industry Propaganda, and Funding from Monsanto, Turn Attention to Organic Food

recent study by Stanford University researchers made international headlines when it claimed that organic foods are no more safe or nutritious than conventional foods. Organic researchers, farmers and advocacy groups immediately recognized the study as woefully flawed, and alleged underlying political motivations.

"People don't buy organic food just because they think it contains slightly higher levels of nutrients, they buy organic for many other reasons, primarily to avoid toxic pesticide residues and toxins that have been genetically engineered into the food," says Charlotte Vallaeys, Food and Farm Policy Director at The Cornucopia Institute, a non-profit organic farm policy organization.

Academics and organic policy experts, including at Cornucopia, immediately recognized that Stanford's research in fact substantiates dramatic health and safety advantages in consuming organic food, including an 81% reduction in exposure to toxic and carcinogenic agrichemicals. Unfortunately, readers would never know it by the headlines, since the results of the study were spun by the Stanford researchers and public relations staff, and accepted without the necessary fact-checking by journalists in a rush to file stories over the Labor Day weekend.

Not surprisingly, the study's glaring errors, both in understanding the important and complex differences between organic and conventional foods and in the researchers' flawed choice of research methods, prompted organic advocates to look closely at financial ties between Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute, which supports the researchers, and the chemical and agribusiness industry.

"There was just no way that truly independent scientists with the expertise required to adequately answer such an important question would ignore the vast and growing body of scientific literature pointing to serious health risks from eating foods produced with synthetic chemicals," says Vallaeys.

"So we were not one bit surprised to find that the agribusiness giant Cargill, the world's largest agricultural business enterprise, and foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which have deep ties to agricultural chemical and biotechnology corporations like Monsanto, have donated millions to Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute, where some of the scientists who published this study are affiliates and fellows."

Stanford researchers had touted their independence by stating they had not received outside financial support for their study, but failed to delineate the close ties between their internal funding sources and industrialized agriculture and biotechnology interests.

Organic advocates also discovered that one of the study's authors has a well-documented history of accepting research funding from the tobacco industry when a growing body of scientific literature in the 1970s pointed to serious health risks from smoking.

Dr. Ingram Olkin, a Professor Emeritus in statistics at Stanford and co-author of the organics study, accepted money from the tobacco industry's Council for Tobacco Research, which has been described as using science for "perpetrating fraud on the public."

"Make no mistake, the Stanford organics study is a fraud," says Mike Adams of Naturalnews.com and Anthony Gucciardi of Naturalsociety.org, who discovered the link between the organic study author and Big Tobacco. "To say that conventional foods are safe is like saying that cigarettes are safe. Both can be propagandized with fraudulent science funded by corporate donations to universities, and we're seeing the same scientist who helped Big Tobacco now helping Big Biotech in their attempt to defraud the public."

Researchers with expertise in organics became suspicious about corporate funding and other industry ties after finding no other explanation for the Stanford study's glaring omissions and flaws.

For example, multiple studies have drawn attention to the negative impacts of pesticide residues on children's neurological health and development. Pesticides commonly used in conventional agriculture and often found as residues on conventional foods are known to be toxic not only to the neurological systems of insects but also of mammals, including humans, with developing fetuses, infants and children especially at risk.

"When the Stanford researchers left out any mention of pesticide residue impacts on human health, well-documented in a number of respected peer-reviewed studies, it immediately raised a red flag that Stanford's analysis was likely designed to favor the agribusiness corporations in their desperate attempts to convince an increasingly educated and skeptical public that pesticides are safe," says Vallaeys.

As an example, the Stanford researchers omitted a 2010 study published in the journal Pediatrics by researchers at the University of Montreal and Harvard, which found that children with higher urinary levels of organophosphate metabolites, breakdown products of commonly used insecticides that are prohibited in organic agriculture, were more likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

The Stanford study also omitted any acknowledgement of potential cancer risks from exposure to agricultural chemicals on conventional foods. This seems especially reprehensible to the scientists at Cornucopia in light of the 2009 President's Cancer Panel report, which states: "Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma."

The authors of the President's Cancer Panel advise Americans to decrease exposure to pesticides by choosing food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers. Extensive research, including studies cited in Stanford's study, indicates that organic food is demonstrably lower in agrichemical residues.

"Journalists failed to do due diligence to check the credibility of the Stanford study," says Mark Kastel, Codirector at The Cornucopia Institute. "Wanting to be ahead of the news curve, reporters rushed out their stories on this study, over a holiday weekend, without seeking the expert advice of scientists who have studied the harmful effects of chemicals used in conventional food products and the documented advantages of an organic diet."

Cornucopia points to several additional ways in which the Stanford study is seriously flawed and should never have been deemed scientifically rigorous enough to make national headlines. One glaring inadequacy of the Stanford study and subsequent media coverage is the failure to mention the known and unknown health risks of genetically engineered foods, which are prohibited in organics but dominate the conventional food supply.

"Many of the genetically modified crops ubiquitous in our food supply have been engineered to make toxins part of the plant's DNA, so that every bite of genetically engineered food means a bite of the pesticide that has been inserted into the plant's DNA, and cannot be washed off," says Vallaeys. "The credibility of the Stanford study was doomed from the moment that the scientists decided not to even consider such central differences between conventional and organic."

In 2011, scientists at the University of Sherbrooke in Canada published results of a study showing that toxins that have been genetically engineered into plants are not broken down in the body, as the biotech industry had claimed, but are in fact absorbed into the bloodstream of people who consume genetically engineered foods. Alarmingly, the researchers even found the genetically engineered toxins in the blood of fetuses of pregnant women enrolled in the study.

Published studies have pointed to other health risks from eating genetically engineered food, including damage to the liver, kidney, heart, adrenal glands and spleen.

The Stanford study also ignored an growing body of research, including some conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), that shows that exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, often used in conventional agriculture, can do severe harm at low doses.

"It is therefore disingenuous of the Stanford researchers to suggest that conventional foods are as safe as organic foods because pesticide residues on conventional foods generally, but not always, fall within EPA's limits," said the Cornucopia's Vallaeys.

According to the NIEHS, "an independent panel of experts convened by NIEHS and NTP found that there was "credible evidence" that some hormone-like chemicals can affect test animals' bodily functions at very low levels — well below the "no effect" levels determined by traditional [EPA] testing."

Moreover, as with pesticide's effects on cancer rates, the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals are generally long-term, sometimes even multi-generational. "New research funded by NIEHS also found that endocrine disruptors may affect not just the offspring of mothers exposed during pregnancy, but future offspring as well," according to the NIEHS.

"Given the complexity of the topic, no responsible scientist would allow their university's communications department to characterize this type of research as proof that organic is no safer than conventional," says Vallaeys. "The deep financial ties to agribusiness corporations whose profits depend on the public's acceptance of agricultural chemicals and genetically engineered crops, and one of the author's expertise in twisting science for the benefit of the tobacco industry, seem to explain the shortfalls of this study."

Stanford University has deep ties to chemical agribusiness and agricultural biotechnology corporations. Agribusiness giant Cargill boasts it has a twenty-five year partnership with Stanford University, and faculty, including at the School of Medicine, have served on the Board of Directors of Monsanto while holding influential leadership positions at the university.

Stanford University is also the home of the Hoover Institution, a prominent ultraconservative, corporate-funded think tank that has attacked the credibility of organic farming and food production in the past.

George H. Poste, a member of Monsanto's Board of Directors is listed on the biotechnology giant's website as also being a Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution. The Cornucopia Institute monitors its activities, and those of other right-wing public affairs and lobby groups such as the Hudson Institute and the Heartland Institute, as part of what the farm policy interest group calls "the corporate attack on organics."

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-6 # jsheats 2012-09-14 09:56
I'm sorry, but many of the comments in this article do not help the very admirable cause of organic farming at all.

I never saw a headline saying that the study claimed that "organic foods are no more safe or nutritious than conventional foods." You cannot control what headline editors write, but the stories all clearly stated the study's findings that non-organic foods had more pesticide residues.

But much worse is the comment "To say that conventional foods are safe is like saying that cigarettes are safe." This is so bizarre I feel the person quoted must be a Monsanto-paid agent provocateur.

Organic food production can stand on its merits, without blatantly absurd pronouncements like this. Please try to do better.
 
 
+8 # dkonstruction 2012-09-14 14:09
1) The title of the study is: "Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds" so claiming that you did not see headlines that read "organic foods are no more safe or nutritous than conventional foods" in no way contradicts the critique of this study. The question is not whether the study concluded that non-organic foods had "more" pesticide "residues" than organic food as one does not need a study for this since if they are organic they have no pesticide residues. The point is that the very title of the study is designed to make the reader believe that organic foods are no better than those containing toxic pesticides.

2) What is wrong with the statement that "To say that conventional foods" (i.e., foods containing pesticides) "islike saying cigarettes are safe"? There is nothing inaccurate or misleading in this statement. You may not like the analogy but that's a different matter. They are not saying that conventional foods are as dangerous as cigarettes or even implying it so what is your complaint about this sentence?
 
 
0 # jsheats 2012-09-14 18:56
The comparison of conventional food to cigarettes is patently absurd. People don't get lung cancer with >50% probability by eating conventionally grown foods. And of course the author is saying exactly what you say he doesn't imply: why else would the comparison be made? You don't understand the concept of "analogy" if that isn't clear.
 
 
+4 # brux 2012-09-15 07:18
they get diabetes, fatty liver, pancreatic cancer and all kinds of other rotten things instead of lung cancer from eating a processed food diet.

The other thing is just looking at the food is that they do not take into account the poisoning of the land and workers in coventional agriculture, let along the destruction of the top soil, the overuse of water, the runoff, and many other things.
 
 
+1 # jsheats 2012-09-15 14:19
It is simply not true that they "did not take into account..." etc. None of that was within the scope of the paper, whose goals are explicitly given in the introduction. You have to realize that scientific papers are not political polemics: they are restricted to the topical goals which they specify. Saying they did not take into account poisoning of the land and workers is like saying they did not take into account the damage we are doing to the people of Afghanistan with our war machine there.

The paper DID, however, very clearly (you can read it in the publicly available abstract and conclusions) state the positive findings of lower or undetectable pesticides and harmful bacteria. It was not stated in polemical language, but it is unambiguous and totally honest. The assertions of "fraud" are simply not borne out by looking at what was written.

As to the health detriments or benefits of a "processed food diet" (a rather vague designation which can encompass a huge variety of details), this can be argued, but nowhere is the clarity of cause and effect reached that is evident in cigarette smoking. To claim otherwise just does a disservice to the topic, and turns people off whom you would really like to be influencing into supporting organic farming.
 
 
+1 # brux 2012-09-15 21:03
you are talking in isolation, for example sugar, give someone a teaspoon of sugar, they are fine, and they even like it. you omit the whole issue of systemically. that is pretty polemical they way i look at it bub. funny that you see it as totally honest.
 
 
+5 # NOMINAE 2012-09-14 22:20
@ dkonstruction

People primarily buy organic foods more for what is *NOT* in them.

It is pointless for people here to argue the science.

How many readers can actually have MISSED the glaringly *obvious* fact that Stanford University, arguably the MOST respected academic institution in the State of California, issues such a *howlingly transparent* piece of pseudo-science a mere two months in advance of the upcoming national election that also presents California residents with an opportunity to vote on a ballot measure frantically opposed by Big Agra, that *requires* GMO labeling on ALL GMO foods ?

Can our present-day point 5 second attention spans *really* blind us that effectively ?

The original "report" is not *about* the science. It's about denigrating organic foods, and making a public with an average sixth-grade level of comprehension sucker into the idea that the exact chemicals that, in larger doses, are the mainstay of our chemical warfare arsenals, are also, (simply in reduced doses),*perfect ly* healthy for you and your children to consume.

Every *bit* as good as the more expensive food *WITHOUT* the nervous system and endocrine system disruptors built right in.

Yessiree, folks, and "hand to God", "nicotine is *not* an addictive substance", and the 400+ *added* chemicals in cigarettes are simply a very generous consumer bonus !

Bon appetit !
 
 
+3 # Glen 2012-09-15 05:30
Very good points here, Nominae. After forwarding the critique of the Stanford results to a couple of people, they stood by Stanford all the way due to the reputation of said university.

Also good point concerning California's coming vote.
 
 
-1 # jsheats 2012-09-15 14:11
I completely agree with your first sentence; that is absolutely the critical point (and it is in complete agreement with the study).

However, I don't know why it is pointless to argue the science, which is all that there is any argument about. I am going to keep commenting because it is too important a subject to leave; maybe a few people will be open-minded enough to see the point (which is that there is at least no unambiguous nutritional content advantage, if any, to organically grown food; there IS a clear-cut, substantial health benefit due to the absence of pesticides). This was stated explicitly in the abstract of the paper (on the Internet for all to see).

Your point about "Stanford...iss uing" a paper simply does not relate to the facts of academic publication. Stanford University does not publish academic papers. Individuals publish them. No one in the administration of the university has any right to dictate or even influence the content of such a paper except with respect to fabrication of data, plagiarism, libel, etc. And since the paper was almost certainly submitted for publication well over a year before it appeared (usually it takes at least that long, sometimes longer, to get through review and press scheduling), there is no correlation to this fall's politics.
 
 
+2 # dkonstruction 2012-09-14 14:15
Quoting jsheats:
I'm sorry, but many of the comments in this article do not help the very admirable cause of organic farming at all.

I never saw a headline saying that the study claimed that "organic foods are no more safe or nutritious than conventional foods." You cannot control what headline editors write, but the stories all clearly stated the study's findings that non-organic foods had more pesticide residues.

But much worse is the comment "To say that conventional foods are safe is like saying that cigarettes are safe." This is so bizarre I feel the person quoted must be a Monsanto-paid agent provocateur.

Organic food production can stand on its merits, without blatantly absurd pronouncements like this. Please try to do better.


Who is more likely to be the "Monsanto-paid agent provocateur" here?
 
 
0 # jsheats 2012-09-14 19:09
Let me try again. I think I made it quite clear that I favor organically grown foods. I am willing to pay (and do pay) more if necessary to get them. In the long run, if they were more widely purchased, the price differential would disappear. Properly executed organic techniques can save money in many ways. The environment, as well as human health, would be better off.

For precisely these reasons, I am irritated by bad arguments, especially ones so bad that they are likely to turn people off who are undecided but wondering. You may very well criticize the elements of the paper, as any good academic would (and no doubt did during peer review and will do in other publications). To call this paper a "fraud" simply turns people off whom you would like to have as your allies.

And let me explain what a "provocateur" is, since you apparently missed that. It is someone who pretends to take one side, in an outrageous fashion so as to incite counterattacks. That is what the "cigarette" stupidity is.
 
 
-18 # happycamper690 2012-09-14 11:09
I agree with jsheats. What is to say that this rebuttal was not financed by organic farmers put on the defensive by the Stanford report. No one questions that some pesticides are dangerous is left on food, but, as far as I know, the FDA does a pretty good job assuring that all food passes their regulations, and in a global farming community, there will be some pesticide in all products.
 
 
+10 # dkonstruction 2012-09-14 14:13
Quoting happycamper690:
I agree with jsheats. What is to say that this rebuttal was not financed by organic farmers put on the defensive by the Stanford report. No one questions that some pesticides are dangerous is left on food, but, as far as I know, the FDA does a pretty good job assuring that all food passes their regulations, and in a global farming community, there will be some pesticide in all products.


The Stanford report is not objective science but rather industry funded propaganda as evidenced both by who funded it as well as the very title of the study: "Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds"

"some pesticides are dangerous if left on food"...please tell us the ones that are not dangerous and what your source is for such a claim.

"..as far as I know, the FDA does a pretty good job...." and this claim is baded on?

"and in a global farming community, there will be some pesticide in all products"....on ly if they are not organic which is one of the points of organic farming...no toxics...no poisons...no pesticides....

You may be a happycamper eating poisoned food and have no problem with industry funded propaganda pretending to be an objective scientific study but at least there are those out there doing their best to expose these poison peddlers.
 
 
+6 # pianosaurus rex 2012-09-14 12:11
For $50-$150.00 one can purchase what is called a Refractometer. Some call this unit a Brix tester.
Once the refractometer is calibrated the unit will measure the nutrient content of any vegetable you want.
The Brix scale is the scale used to determine the nutrient value of what you eat from the garden.
Example:
I tested a tomato from a large chain supermarket. Out of a value of twelve total points the tomato was a four ….
I then took a tomato from my garden and measured. This one was a nine.
I took a ground cherry and measured this and it was a twelve.
The main difference between organic and chemical farming;
When you chemical farm this contaminates the soil for everyone, the chemicals are washed through into the water table for everyone to consume, and residue is left on the vegetables one eats.
When you farm organically you are using organic matter from cow, steer, sheep, pig, chicken or fish.
Now fish fertilizer contains large amount of magnesium and calcium. These two products rehab the soil and balance the nutrient levels along with ph levels assistance.
Now which would you want to feed your family?
Grow something; start small, and work up. Find an older person who cannot till their garden any longer and ask if you can work the soil for a small amount of produce. Most older people would be happy to see their garden being used by the next generations……

Happy eating…….
 
 
+4 # portiz 2012-09-14 13:15
Refractometers only measure the refractive index of a liquid. There is no correlation between that index and nutrient content.

Consider that sugar water has a higher refractive index than pure water. Does that make it more nutritious or less?
 
 
+3 # happycamper690 2012-09-14 16:47
A Brix tester measures the refractive index of an aqueous solution. Its relationship to nutrition is just about zero. Long ago I used one to test the sap from maple trees to measure sugar content; the nigher the r.i., the more sugar. But, to think that one can compare tomatoes for anything other than sugar is just not consistent with science. The sugar content in vegetables is very variety dependent ... a paste tomato would look "bad" on a Brix when compared to a beefsteak, etc. I am a PhD chemist. I know what I am talking about.
 
 
+2 # portiz 2012-09-14 17:17
Good answer. :-D

It seems like 'great minds are thinking alike'.

PS My PhD is in biochem.
 
 
0 # brux 2012-09-15 22:00
as others have mentioned your science is messed up,
but your enthusiasm is out of control to make up for it! ;-)
 
 
+8 # Feral Dogz 2012-09-14 12:35
I was very disappointed to hear the story about the Stanford study on NPR without any mention of who funded the work or conducted the study. The gist of the story was indeed that organic foods are no more nutritious or safe than industrially produced foods.

The reporter asserted that there is, for all practical purposes, no difference between organic and industrial food. Does this view take into account the environmental damage from chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides? Soil erosion and trace mineral depletion?

This study is obviously propaganda from Big Ag and also helps to serve Big Pharma by keeping people ignorant and unhealthy. Shame on Stanford and shame on the media for not vetting this misleading study.
 
 
+2 # portiz 2012-09-14 13:19
Quoting Feral Dogz:
I was very disappointed to hear the story about the Stanford study on NPR without any mention of who funded the work or conducted the study. The gist of the story was indeed that organic foods are no more nutritious or safe than industrially produced foods.

The reporter asserted that there is, for all practical purposes, no difference between organic and industrial food. Does this view take into account the environmental damage from chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides? Soil erosion and trace mineral depletion?

This study is obviously propaganda from Big Ag and also helps to serve Big Pharma by keeping people ignorant and unhealthy. Shame on Stanford and shame on the media for not vetting this misleading study.


NPR did a great follow-up in which they addressed many of the questions submitted by listeners.

Knee-jerk reactions like "organic food is good" or "non-organic food is bad" fail to address the complexity of the issue. Complex questions rarely have simple answers.
 
 
+6 # dkonstruction 2012-09-14 15:37
There is nothing "knee-jerk" about saying I don't want to have to eat food laced with toxic chemicals or that has been genetically modified.

Nor is it "knee-jerk" to say that there have been plenty of reputable scientific studies documenting the dangers of toxic chemicals (whether they come in our food, air, water, building materials, cleaning products, etc) to human beings.

You're right, complex questions do rarely have simple answers but simple one more often than not do. And, so the simple question is simply: does exposure to toxic chemicals (in this case through the food we eat) pose proven, verifiable and serious (sometimes fatal) health risk to humans and of course the simple answer is yes.

What is "knee-jerked" is for corporations who on the one hand claim that there is nothing wrong with or unsafe about the presence of these chemicals in our food and on the other do everything they can to prevent legislation from being passed that includes this information on food labels so we the consumer can know what is in our food so that we can choose whether or not we want to eat it (interesting how conservatives only want "choice" when it is a "choice" they care about or have a vested interest in).
 
 
+4 # AMLLLLL 2012-09-14 13:30
My reaction to the recent proclamation by 'Stanford scientists' was one word: DUH You could almost smell it coming. Next they'll be telling us that smog is actually healthy to breathe.
 
 
+6 # WallStWallFlowerGirl 2012-09-14 14:11
Attention RSN readers! If you live in CA., please, please, PLEASE vote YES on #37 in November!!!

It's "your right to know" (what you're eating); YES on 37 means LABELING GMO's (genetically modified organisms) on all food sold. Think back to a time no such nutritional standards were set by which consumers knew how much salt, sugar & other ingredients they were eating- and you'll recognize Monsanto propaganda when you hear it.

Twas a time when cigarettes were considered just fine... Well, we've come a long way, baby- YES on #37!!!!!
 
 
-5 # portiz 2012-09-14 15:31
You do realize that labeling GMOs may lead people to realize that GMOs may not necessarily be bad in and of themselves, right? If so, they will proliferate in the marketplace.

IMHO, the most dangerous aspects of GMOs are that they are used to make crappy foods, and that they undermine eco-smart farming practices.
 
 
+8 # dkonstruction 2012-09-14 16:17
Quoting portiz:
You do realize that labeling GMOs may lead people to realize that GMOs may not necessarily be bad in and of themselves, right? If so, they will proliferate in the marketplace.

IMHO, the most dangerous aspects of GMOs are that they are used to make crappy foods, and that they undermine eco-smart farming practices.


I believe that people should have the right to choose not to eat GMO foods and farmers have the right to choose not to grow GMO crops (including having their existing land/crops contaminated by GMO seeds.

Once this is secure i have no problem also saying that people who want to and choose to eat GMO foods should also have that right but first we must secure the rights of those that do not want to eat or use GMO products
 
 
+4 # brux 2012-09-15 07:25
Whatever people realize or do not realize they will be doing it based on information they should have. what is wrong with that ?
 
 
0 # brux 2012-09-15 22:03
true, all GMOs are not the same, but who is going to decide and how can anyone tell, I can't, and I choose not to want my money to go to support anything like Monstersanto!

I am well aware that genetic engineering has a lot of promise, but it does not mean we have to rush into anything to the extent that we put the biosphere in danger and for no reason either!
 
 
-3 # Smokey 2012-09-14 14:38
Don't kid yourself. The organic foods industry is a multibillion dollar industry with its own merchants, lobbyists, and PR hounds. Ask the Whole Foods chiefs for more information.
 
 
+9 # dkonstruction 2012-09-14 15:29
Quoting Smokey:
Don't kid yourself. The organic foods industry is a multibillion dollar industry with its own merchants, lobbyists, and PR hounds. Ask the Whole Foods chiefs for more information.


And, how else do you suggest that organic farmers fight back against the big agrobusiness and chemical companies?
 
 
+1 # cordleycoit 2012-09-14 17:54
I've wondered about the strange ability of the Chemical Industrial Complex to poison the American diet more and more. The more science we do the more adulterated the food supply becomes. Writing push science is nothing new.University Administrators are only to happy to massage the body parts of major donors, they bought their seat with whose money?
 
 
+2 # connieinak 2012-09-14 18:18
ALEC's fingerprints are all over this, just as HEARTLAND is trying to convince us global warming is a myth.

ALEC, the"american legislative exchange council, (aka a legislator for every corporation)- since their beginning days (40 yrs.ago) as "the moral majority" (which was neither) they've colluded to take over our democracy-from within, (via the GOP.)

read their leaked plans (task force 10) at
http://www.vltp.net/alec/alecs-federal-task-force-how-to-change-democracy-from-within.

watch bill moyers' september documentary "the united states of alec" (ck for schedule http://BillMoyers.com/Schedule
or host a house screening and get free dvd at "common cause" website http://theunitedstatesofalec.org/register/
 
 
0 # Joe Bob 2012-09-14 22:14
And you have to realize that the AG people think this is PERFECTLY OK.
Duh, ever hear of Vested Interest ?
Why there's nothing wrong in buying the result we want.
 
 
+4 # DurangoKid 2012-09-14 22:32
Here's another angle. California has a proposition on November's ballot to require labeling of GMO containing foods. The big agri-chemical and GMO producers have already put up over $20 million to defeat it. Does this so-called study help their cause? Why bother with organic today, why not eat GMO's tomorrow? I'm registered and if I vote for nothing else, it will be for Prop. 37. Genetic pollution is too big a risk.
 
 
+3 # brux 2012-09-15 07:13
I live in a neighboring city to Stanford, and I am so sick of Stanford's and every other University becoming some kind of far-right wing filter for entry in to the US 1%.

There are a few brilliant minds at Stanford, but more and more like everything else in this country opposing points of view and free thinkers are being forced out.
 
 
+4 # brux 2012-09-15 07:24
In the everything we know is wrong vein ....

I have an interesting story to tell. There is a book by anthropologist Jared Diamond, who wrote "Collapse" and "Guns, Germs and Steel", called "The Third Chimpanzee."

The title is a bit of a misnomer because it is mostly about the parameters of human beings ... man.

The thing is when you compare the archeological record, when mankind switched over to farming from hunter-gatherin g ... both our body size went down, and our healthiness -as well as leisure time too.

We made the switch so that we could support war-making psychopaths, because that is what we got when we started farming and building up an excess population of unhealthy people that would develop chronic diseases as their vitamin deficient lives went on.

You can see this in the fossil records ... this book is one of the most interesting books I have ever read.

The moving to producing our food using factory methods has made our food deficient and full of chemicals and all kinds of diseases as well.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN