This week the NY Times, along with a number of other newspapers, published an article referencing a Stanford University Department of Medicine study which states that organic food has "no obvious health benefits" over conventional produce and meats. By presenting conventional produce as a safe and equal brother to organic, Stanford is participating in a species of gross misinformation. My editorial article Stanford University Study: Organic vs Conventional/Smoke and Mirrors Fed to the American Public responds to both Stanford and the media's abbreviated portrayal of a complex and multifaceted question. I ask that all my readers take a look and consider the whole picture.
Please Note: the photograph was taken at the San Francisco Farmer's Market
Organics vs Conventional: When the Media Plays Smoke and Mirrors with the American Public
By Jen Hoy, About.com GuideSeptember 9, 2012
Explore Whole Foods Cooking
Comments
Thank you for your balanced perspective. I, too, was suspicious of the findings. Such misinformation fairly begs to be labeled ‘paid for by GMO and Monsanto’. Let me add to your concise points the reality of the poisoning of farm workers who supply us with this so-called innocuous bounty. While it may be illegal to use certain pesticides in the US, it isn’t illegal to manufacture them in the US then ship them to Mexico and other lands, where farm workers die early deaths and communities lose their drinking water. That produce is then shipped to the US for mass consumption and the only ones who benefit are the very same multi-nationals who are holding the world upside down by its ankles to shake loose anything valuable that they may have missed.