So a recent study by a group of researchers from Stanford University published in the Annals of Internal Medicine concludes that organic food is no better than that conventionally grown. As is often the case with the mainstream media, coverage of the study has been sensationalized and misleading. In fact, it’s almost developed into a media war between the corporate media and the public, some even accusing the media of doing a “psyop” on people. What’s the truth about organic food? Is it really never any better than conventional food, as the Stanford study (a metanalysis) suggests?
Well, the study appears to have several problems. First, Robyn O’Brien points out that the study only compared the amount of vitamins and minerals in organic vs. conventional foods, and ignores one of the central reasons people prefer organic: they don’t want to eat the pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics, and other types of chemicals used in conventional farming. But even on that yardstick, the Stanford study ignores that in fact, organic food often does contain more nutrients than conventional food (even if it doesn’t always, which is what the Stanford paper emphasizes), surely an important factor we’d like to consider when making our food purchasing decisions.
The Stanford authors did address the amount of pesticide exposure in organic produce vs. conventionally grown, and conclude that although there is a 30% lower risk difference in organic foods, this isn’t enough to mean anything significant. However, this is misleading; researcher Chuck Benbrook (at Washington State) points out that a better figure based on the Stanford paper’s own sources is 81% lower risk, partly because the authors didn’t distinguish between the number of different kinds of pesticide traces and their extent. Benbrook argues that with respect to pesticide residues:
a) most residues in organic food occur at much lower levels than in conventional food,
b) residues are not as likely in organic foods,
c) multiple residues in a single sample are rare in organic food but common in conventional produce, and
d) high- risk pesticides rarely appear as residues in organic food, and when they do, the levels are usually much lower than those found in conventional food (especially the levels in imported produce).
(from the Mother Jones article linked above)
While the Stanford authors would argue that these things don’t matter because the amount of pesticide residue is too low to cause any biological effects in humans, on the face of it this is a suspect claim; the amount of certain biologically important chemicals, like hormones, occur at very low concentrations in the blood but have profound biological effects. And indeed there is a fair amount of research that shows that even low amounts of some pesticides can cause problems, especially in pregnant women. If you’re pregnant or have young children, this might be information you’d like to know, I’m thinking 🙂
Furthermore, there’s a basic principle that the Stanford authors ignore, namely the Precautionary principle. Even if something hasn’t been proven to cause harm (such as there being a synergistic effect caused by a cocktail of pesticides that increases the risk of biological damage), if there’s an alternative that doesn’t carry that theoretical risk then you should prefer the alternative. Especially, it seems to me, if you’re responsible for someone else’s health, like that of your children.
Do I think organic is always better? Not necessarily, I do think Michael Pollan has some sensible advice on the issue. But what troubles me most is the conflict of interest created by the ties of the Stanford authors to corporations that have a direct financial interest in competing with organic foods, in particular Cargill (a proponent of genetically modified food crops) and Philip Morris, the tobacco giant. So I have to conclude that the Stanford paper is basically a piece of junk science, a hatchet job bought and paid for by corporations with a financial motive to make organics look bad.
Do you disagree? Am I being too harsh? I’d love to hear from you!
Manu's Alternative Medicine Blog 
There are very few research papers that aren’t slanted for the the ones paying for it. We are trained from birth to be consumers and consume we will even as it kills us. Case in point? Fast food.
All too true! But being informed is the first step in becoming free of that propaganda.
Yes! And that’s why I read your blog. Thank you.
I agree with your analysis, and particularly appreciate the conflicts of interest being called out. I served for many years on the governing board of the Institute for children’s environmental health, and I can tell you that industry will stop at nothing to have these topics sidelined, misunderstood, and clouded with confusion – all in an effort to keep the steamroller of their profits moving steadily ahead.
The researchers here, purportedly commenting on a very narrow range of inquiry, either inadvertently or purposely missed the point – because the effect of most of these endocrine disrupting, neurotoxicity type compounds takes many years (sometimes generations) for their effects to manifest. As well, scientists often use an incorrect frame of reference when considering the negative impact of neurotoxins and their ilk. They often frame the research in terms of lethality, which is usually not the harm that these kinds of compounds produce.
With these types of compounds, there is no such thing as a safe “dose.” They especially impact key developmental phases in our young, and very detrimental harm has been catalogued at astoundingly small doses – to the point that any exposure at certain critical times of development will cause harm.
The precautionary principle is an essential approach to dealing with these types of compounds – especially when they are mixed together – because virtually no research has been done on the cumulative interactivity of these known toxins.
Very well stated, Bruce! And thank you so much for sharing your experience and insight. You are absolutely right about the precautionary principle, that’s basic ethics and obviously appropos, and yet the Stanford authors – and the reporting in the media – completely ignores this. The fact that these authors may be indirectly harming children with their deceptive work really has me steamed.