View Full Version : Critics Raise Alarms Over Stanford Organics Study

09-11-12, 07:58 AM
Cathryn Wellner
September 10 2012

When Alice’s adventures in Wonderland were growing increasingly strange, she described them as “curiouser and curiouser.” That may be the best line to describe the Stanford study (http://www.care2.com/causes/yes-organics-are-better-for-you-new-study-misses-the-mark.html) raising such a ruckus among those on opposite sides of the organics-versus-conventional debate.

Recently, I pointed out some of the flaws (http://www.care2.com/causes/yes-organics-are-better-for-you-new-study-misses-the-mark.html) in the study. For example:

Seminal works that would likely have resulted in a very different result were left out of the survey.
Although the authors admitted conventionally raised foods contain more toxic residues, they saw no problem with that.
While higher amounts of some nutrients were attributed to an organic diet, the authors didn’t seem to think that mattered.
No long-term studies were included, nor were there any studies in which participants ate only an organic or conventional diet.
The authors acknowledged “publication bias” in some of the studies but included them anyway.
They ignored the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s nutrient tables (http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Nutrient-Decline-Industrial-Farming.aspx), which have shown a gradual decline in the nutritional value of conventionally raised crops.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/critics-raise-alarms-over-stanford-organics-study.html#ixzz26A4pMAhK

09-11-12, 08:50 AM
Ther article states the study has "done harm to a movement that is working hard with few resources to counter industrial agriculture". I'm sure that was exactly the purpose of the study. Done by Stanford no less with the vote in CA coming up. I wonder how many people will fail to put that together.