Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds


#1

Just wanna add this. Make of it what you want

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html


#2

I believe the pro-organic argument is usually along the lines of “we don’t (and can’t) know what the ultra-long term effects of a lifetime of pesticide/insecticide/etc. consumption are, either on us or on future generations.”

Basically, they are paranoid because there is no evidence of the long term suitability of non-organic food, whereas there is with ‘organic’ food (people have been eating it essentially forever). It’s an argument from ignorance. There may be hazards, but it would be presumptious to say there are hazards since we have no evidence of that, as the review in OP shows. However, due to the nature of the distrust held by pro-organic folk, this review will do little to calm them.


#3

My cousin who works on a mill says that if only people knew how much more fungus is to be found in organic cereals compared to traditional grown cereals they’d never eat organic cereals.


#4

Follow the money–is Monsanto funding their studies, either as that company, or one of their other names used world-wide?


#5

It’s Stanford! I mean, come on!

My very good friend is into organics, and he explained to me once that it’s not about the people, it’s about the nature. If we find a way to use organics large scale throughout the world we’ll save tons of future problems in the evolutionary path of not only the food itself, but the animals living on and around the farms.

However, my largest problem with organics is that it seems to be an easy way for rich white people to eat guilt free while doing nothing to help anyone.


#7

Colleges & Universities get huge funding not just from Government and private Grants, but from Coprorate sponsors. Anyone who still believes research is done free of bias, under such Corporate funding, really needs to stop livinng in the world of Oz.

Stanford, for heaven’s sake, is just as vulnerable to being funded by Corporate interests as any other.

As for Organics allowing white folk to eat guilt-free while doing nothing?!?..
REALLY?
You pulled the Race Card…WHY?
HOW do you stand to profit by pulling that Race Card?
What are you doing to help things, by devolvinng to that?
Do you doubt the success and benefits of Organic Community Gardens, for instance?
Are you so blind to Corporate greed pushing false labeling of foods? THAT transcends all color and budget lines.

Organic community gardens pop up in many cities on lands otherwise bare dirt, beautifully developed into lush organic gardens of prolific food production, by the poor residents there, the gardens feeding people of all colors, far better than food bank provisions–their qualty of life improves everywhere those flourish.
Rich people have allowed that to happen…yes, the poor who run those gardens do have to keep struggling to prevent corporations from taking those wonderful gardens over for developments.
And they have to strugglge to get permission to use that ground.
But gardens can still pop up everywhere, despite NAIS laws–so far.

The CDC [think who runs that?] has recognized a number of critical impact poverty areas in the Country, making grants to help develop ways to help those poverty-stricken areas become healthier, by building up community gardens, and other healthy things, to improve lives.
They recognize the value of Organic food gardens, as do local groups trying to help the impoverished–of all colors–improve their lot.

NAIS laws are gradually taking away everyone’s ability to raise their own Victory Gardens and small animals. Those laws got prommoted by Corporations with their own controlling agendas, which will stop at nothing to promote more of the same–includinng perverting public underrstanding of what is going on behind the proverbial curtains.

Politics and Profiteering drive markets–including food. As long as Stock Markets have sold Pork Belly Futures, etc., there has been profiteering from food.
Companies that control food, control politics, control people—will do it as long as allowed, masked by all sorts of marketing camoflage–aided and abetted by ignorant consumers who fail to question what they consider consuming.

There really is no time left for sniping droll glibness like the race card, or claiming organic when a product is not, or worse, allowing Corporations or governments to insert false information even into Organic groups, to confuse and prevent progress towards cleaning up the food chain and the planet.

ANY product promoted with subterfuge, has within it the very stuff of failure.
It’s ALL our posterities on the line; the messes are in every back yard, worldwide.
What we do in developed countries, provides templates for other countries to follow–a truely deadly vision if ever there was, unless rapidly corrected.

If you wish to joke as you will, make sure to harm none in the doing.


#8

I tend to believe the people I know who is testing the produce them selves. The stanford report just so happened to support what my cousin told me and I can tell you that he has nothing to do with mosanto nor stanford or anything else (and they handle both organic and non-organic products). However. I do support the idea of less toxicity in the world. However, please remember this, organic farmers are spending many times more time in their traktors and other farm vehicles than non-organic farmers. Think about the amount of CO2 they are adding to the world. Also, cows living on organic food tend to fart a lot more than those who eats non-organic food. You may think that I am joking, but it is no joke at all.

The problem with the organic attitude is they focus solely on the start and the end product, what happens in between they close their eyes to. It’s the same problem with windmills


#9

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#10

Good insult!

chimonger, I don’t think there’s any need to presume offence was meant. I read it as ‘stereotypical white suburban mom who probably means well but doesn’t really know or think too much about the consequences of her actions’. I really don’t think anybody would attempt to imply that only white people buy organic food.


#12

I agree! I have thought the same though have had difficulty wording it and found some of the people I have discussed this with rather aggressive about the topic. I think you have done it nicely though.


#13

Good call on looking to see where the Money is but After actually reading the Stanfords study I came across this info. No Monsanto here…
"Other Stanford co-authors are Margaret Brandeau, PhD, the Coleman F. Fung Professor in the School of Engineering; medical students Grace Hunter, J. Clay Bavinger and Maren Pearson; research assistant Paul Eschbach; Vandana Sundaram, MPH, assistant director for research at CHP/PCOR; Hau Liu, MD, MBA, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Stanford and senior director at Castlight Health; Patricia Schirmer, MD, infectious disease physician with the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System; medical librarian Christopher Stave, MLS; and Ingram Olkin, PhD, professor emeritus of statistics and of education. The authors received no external funding for this study.


#14

Organic Production Enhances Milk Nutritional Quality by Shifting Fatty Acid Composition: A United States–Wide, 18-Month Study


#15

I chose organic, mostly because of the unknown. We were once told Agent Orange, DDT and asbestos were safe. Heck, people even once thought radioactive water was good for your! There have been numerous incidents of drug companies exaggerating or covering up research to keep the money rolling in. Whether the FDA was involved in the cover-ups or not, I don’t know. Bottom line, there is so much corruption in food and drugs, that you really can’t trust anyone. Historical data of human consumption of whole, organic foods can tell us far more than a short term study by a company that has more interest in their bank account than my health. For this reason, I choose to grow as much of my own food as possible. What I can’t grow, I buy organic. What I can’t buy organic, I only buy if it’s something I badly need or want. Aside form the health risks of consuming GMOs, there is also the issue of environmental damage. One could argue that organic farming uses more fossil fuels, but I believe the evidence shows GMOs are causing more damage to us and the planet than the possibility of human caused global warming. Everyone can make their own decisions with what they buy. I just worry that we may come to a day where the damage is irreparable, what will we do then?


#16

'GMO’s aren’t dangerous, and arguable, without them, everybody would starve. They have been altered to survive harsher conditions, pests, and some chemicals (in the cast of agriculture), or to produce chemicals/proteins for medical needs (diabetics).

That being said i find the terms '‘organic’ and ‘GMO’ are used by people with little to no scientific knowledge. Organic means a compound or molecule that contains carbon. If you think 'GMO’s are dangerous, well guess what, that’s how insulin is produced. Yeast is genetically modified to produce insulin, which for some, is life saving.

Are WE causing ‘global warming’? NO. Are we possibly accelerating it? probably. You need to understand that volcanoes and underwater/deep sea vents pump out more CO2 than most people want to believe. That being said, I don’t see why we cant collect this CO2 and use it as a gas irrigation in farming to improve plant growth (for those that don’t know, plants convert CO2 into O2 and produce glucose).

DDT wasn’t as bad as the politicians made it out to be. Did it kill mosquitoes and insects? Yes. Did it thin the egg shells of some bird species? Yes. However, it has since been found that the thinner egg shells did NOT have a negative impact, instead more hatch lings where able to make it out of their shells. Is that a negative or positive effect?

I haven’t heard of ‘agent orange’, but it is best to keep an open mind as more information comes to light, things do change. Certain GMOs might be bad, but certainly not all.


#17

You certainly sound like you understand this topic. Do you work in science? I have found you on other websites and you definitely published many things that were not true. Now I am confused and uncertain of your credibility.


#18

Liberty, I didn’t realize we each need to post credentials on here.
Yes. I do…have scientific background.
And my interests are far-reaching, work history is diverse.
And, I’ve been around several decades longer than, apparently, many posting on this list, so I’ve witnessed, seen, heard, studied, and taken care of the untoward results of, some things they may not have.
Just because someone has not heard of something, does not necessarily make it untrue; what some feel is untrue, might have been based on information I had at that time–same as anyone else.
OR, because they didn’t have the same information yet…same as most folks. Information has a way of lagging in it’s travels. ALSO, the internet is being aggressively salted with disinformation by paid hack-writers…so even if someone is stating facts, the disinformation campaigns are at times, difficult to see through–even for those with much higher educations, who believe they are fairly good at telling the difference.
I would ask, before you go discrediting what I write, by using hyperbolized, global generalities
[like: “…published many things that were not true”], would you be willing to list a Specific or two that you feel is incorrect, so I have a clue what you are mentioning?
I would be glad to discuss it.
There are, perhaps, plenty of clay feet to go around for everyone…and it might be, there is more information to be shared/learned, both ways.


#19

Matt88,
IMHO, it sounds like you need to please study actual papers on this subject, not just what political agendas spew. I encourage you to look more deeply, please!

I was fairly young when advertisements told everyone “Better Living Through Chemistry”.
We’ve been duped by unscrupulous profiteers ever since. Legislators on every side, are being bought/paid for by industries with agendas to push–it’s not a “party” thing, it’s about industries getting legislation passed that suits them–they buy legislators in ALL parties. Politicians don’t get into office without those. The higher their rank and position, the greater they get paid by the more industries to do their bidding.

“Organic” does indeed refer to basic chemistry. It was always called “Organic Chemistry”.
That is basic stuff. But it can be confusing and misleading to those who are not familiar with various forms of farming and gardening.
It ALSO applies to “Organic gardening” and “Organic Farming”; raising of foods without using man-made chemical compounds.
Please study what Organic farming really is. It makes a huge difference.

GMO Theories could be safe; However, HOW they are mostly being done, is Not.
Inserting genes from animals into plants, or inserting genes from plants that are not food, then forcing those to grow using man-made chemical compounds, is NOT ok.
Nor is it OK for that industry to aggressively work to destroy neighboring farms that choose NOT to participate in that project.
Nor is it OK to release GMO’d fish, which take-over fish populations world-wide, effectively making a mono-crop of all fish in the seas, once the merging is complete.
Fish farming is perhaps a Good thing, but HOW it’s done, is not—though there are a few who are doing far better at it, by mixing multiple fish, shellfish, and sea-veggies into the grow spheres, getting not only more crops to sell, but healthier growing conditions for their crops, and for the oceans they use.
Allergy rates have increased since GMO’d foods were introduced.
Peanut deaths from severe allergies shot-up.
Gut ailments have drastically increased.
However, there may be more things that contribute to those.
GMO’d seeds require man-made chemical compounds to grow them–those are very toxic.
Google: “Glyphosphates”—a huge problem, as are other man-made chemical compounds we exist in 24/7 these days.
The number of hormone-interrupting, man-made chemicals, is adversely impacting populations world-wide; for instance, the huge numbers of people with Vitamin D deficiencies, or the huge increases in people having trouble conceiving, bearing, and birthing healthy babies.
These chemicals interrupt ALL hormones, not just sex hormones–including insulin, for instance.
Yet, these things are NOT being investigated properly. Those who ask too many questions, are shut-up. A Doc and his partner were going to investigate perinatal issues in the East Bay area of CA in the early 1990’s; a couple small articles got published in the Contra Costa Times, announcing the studies, and inviting people to take part in their studies; they were told to cease and desist, or they’d never practice medicine anywhere, ever again; I believe them, as I’d also seen other cover-ups in the Bay Area, and witnessed so-called research being done at the VA hospital in that area, that were badly designed, data was actively falsified to make results appear how the sponsors of the “research” wanted the outcomes to look. Today, two of those things are being marketed, despite falsified data.

You also might believe the Gov’t when they swear there have never been any Spongiform Encephalitis cases in the USA, until that meat got shipped, or travelers came home from, England.
Not so.
News articles I read from the 1930’s, in the Midwest, described farmers having to bury whole flocks of sheep on the back 40, because of Scrapie infection; the Contra Costa Times ran a few successive articles about a woman dying of Mad Cow Disease, at Mt. Diablo Hospital, in the 1990’s–she was not a traveler to Europe; One of my old teachers dies of symptoms that exactly describe Spongiform Encephalitis, before anyone knew what it was, back in the 1970’s.
So yes, “Mad Cow” has been in the USA for many years, but it was not causing huge yet, then.
But scaring people to death about it, has allowed industries to get NAIS laws passed [Countryside Magazine ran Many articles and debates on this, for a very long time], which step-wise, systematically make it almost impossible for small farmers to farm, and the later stages of that law included wording that controlled pets and home-Victory Gardens; i.e., they will be outlawed or greatly limited, and it was forbidden for anyone to sell their extra produce.
Federal law has, for some time, forbidden most Fed. Funded Food Banks from accepting locally grown produce to give to the poor.

You are right–“global warming” is a usual, cyclical event.
We currently have ice-core measurements covering the last 650,000 years.
All those cycles look similar: each of those warming events is paired with an almost identical-sized freeze cycle, which partly overlaps the warming cycle, causing some confusing weather.
ALL of those former events were nearly identical, with little variation.
NOW, though, the warming cycle has been accelerated by the machine age, over about the last 100+ years, to about double the usual cycles found in over 650,000 years of ice-core samples.
THAT is to be concerned about.
The corresponding freeze cycle will be a corresponding height-spike of an ice-age, if historical repeating patterns hold true-to-form; this one should be a real doozy–but most of us may never get to see it, since the cycles take more time than humans have in a single life-span–the effects will be felt by our Grandkids and theirs.
Where North America Had been covered almost clear across, with forests, we now have huge swaths of desertification.
Some of our deserts didn’t used to be this hot and dry–in my lifetime.
For instance, CA didn’t used to be nearly so hot/dry; it was covered with verdant growing areas, still, in the 1950’s, and there was plenty of water. We actually got some freezing temps in winter all over S. CA and up into the valleys, most of each winter–we actually needed coats…no more.
Not now. Water’s about out.
We’ve had one horrific dust-bowl in the Midwest, and are headed for more of those–those didn’t happen when the prairies were managed properly.
Sea Levels are rising already; some places worse than others.
There are a few towns or villages that are currently being moved, because where they were, they can’t live, due to rising sea levels.
It’s creeping up on NYC, and Miami, too.

DDT has it’s problems–try to find anything about the couple who deliberately chose to consume it daily, to prove it was harmless; you’ll have a hard time finding it, because they got sick, and further articles were highly discouraged.
Generally, Pesticides damage the nervous systems of any body with a nervous system.
How fast it hits, and what damage it does, is dose-dependant, in context with the person’s general health. One of my old landlords pesticided his rentals, and ended up dead in less than 24 hours–too high a dose, no protective gear = massive “heart attack”, not from a clot, but because his heart muscles spasmed to death and his lungs refused to operate–even the heart-lung machine couldn’t save him.

You haven’t heard of Agent Orange? I would think then, you must be young, or got fed little history in school.
CLUE: It was THE most used, heavy-duty herbicide used in Viet Nam, which the Gov’t chose to deny caused any ills. There were many other colored agents, but Orange was most used.
It did cause ills.
I took care of some of those patients, with deep wounds that wouldn’t heal–ever. Try doing surgery on a patient with that, not knowing if the new wound would ever truly close up and heal over?
The Gov’t chose to make them disappear, rather than admit they got messed up by chemicals military used.
My spouse worked on Johnston Island Atoll, making sure the containers didn’t leak–except they did leak, and there was not much anyone could do to prevent it…sorry fish; sorry Hawaii; sorry South Pacific.
Herbicides and pesticides interrupt bodily functions in humans and animals, similarly to how they screw with plants and bugs.
Just because industry and politicians on industry payrolls and contribution lists, say they are safe, it doesn’t mean they are.
Asking those who have a vested interest in maintaining stays quo, is like asking your parents–you really want to trust they know the right answers, but they don’t always know, yet some might try to fake an answer to end the discussion.
Politicians can only give out information they’ve been fed.

Don’t take my word for it; it would behoove everyone to look more deeply into it for themselves.


#20

CanMan888,
I make of it this:
Stanford U is well-funded by Fed. Funding and Industries with a very vested interest in keeping people ignorant of what they are really doing. I’ve seen how they design studies to make results come out in favor of industry agendas. I’ve been on the receiving end of being told to shut-up about wheat I’ve seen/heard/experienced.


#21

I’ve been enjoying the fruits of the harvest for weeks now. Our fresh, local, organic produce is irresistible. So much more vibrant than supermarket produce, organic or otherwise. I can’t wait to take them home and eat them! Do you feel the same way about your groceries?


#22

For starters, I have read the papers, and I don’t know if you noticed, but usually near the end, around the references, they tend to have a little snippet that says "paid for by ". Sadly, nearly all the ‘research’ done was paid for by Monsanto or anti-GMO parties, leaving the results/conclusions questionable. “Organic farming” (I would think ‘old school’ or ‘traditional’ would work better than organic) has issues with lower yields due to pests.

From this, I know you don’t know how farming works or how the inserted genes work. More often than not the inserted genes help make the plant more resistant to pests or pest control chemicals (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc). The inserted genes perform different functions, but lets take roundup ready based GMOs. Roundup (glyphosate herbicide) binds to an enzyme that catalyzes a reaction in plants, which synthesizes some amino acids. When Roundup binds to this enzyme, the enzyme ceases to function, eventually causing the plant to die. Roundup Ready plants have an altered from of this enzyme that Roundup cannot bind to. Note that it doesn’t matter what shape the enzyme is, due to denaturing caused by the stomach. ( http://passel.unl.edu/pages/informationmodule.php?idinformationmodule=959031259&topicorder=6&maxto=9 ) As for the chemical, read up on chemical half-lifes. As for glyphosates, the few negative articles that have come out in the last 2 years are more about how its not harmful to humans, but to the helpful gut bacteria, although they all agree high concentrations are bad.

I don’t know much about fish farming, but I’d argue invasive species are worse than GMO fish.

As it has been said numerous times on these forums, correlation is not causation. MANY thing have changed since GMO foods have been introduced. We are using far more electronics, different methods of washing clothes, additives, etc (anyone is free to add more to this list, if they feel so inclined).

Many ‘man-made’ chemicals are synthesized versions of ones discovered in the environment.

As I was a small child at the time of this incident, I cant say for sure, but how sure are you the so called ‘doc and partner’ were really who they said they where and not con artists? I may only be 26, but I have long since learned to take anything in the news with a large grain of salt.

This is true for anti-GMO policies as well, not just Monsanto, hence why I prefer reading articles from third parties who aren’t biased.

It is a prion disease right? its entirely possible it happens from one bad protein folding, or a random mutation, and not necessarily contracted.

I would also like to point out some previous deserts are becoming grasslands.
DDT wasn’t designed to be consumed daily, and historical usage may show it has been over used. Some pesticides don’t target anything in the human body, and then those that do need to hit a sufficient concentration (which is usually only happens when its not used properly).

In school we covered Viet Nam in less than a week, maybe even a day. Then again I’m not a history buff and preferred the science and math courses more.