Start A Petition

Stanford Scientists Shockingly Reckless on Health Risk And Organics

Green Lifestyle  (tags: Agriculture, conservation, education, environment, greenliving, health, organic, recycling, shopping, society, sustainable )

- 2085 days ago -
The report's opening statement says the tested organic produce carried a 30 percent lower risk of exposure to pesticide residues. And, the report itself also says that "detectable pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples...and 38% ->

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Kit B (276)
Saturday September 8, 2012, 7:38 am

I first heard about a new Stanford "study" downplaying the value of organics when this blog headline cried out from my inbox: "Expensive organic food isn't healthier and no safer than produce grown with pesticides, finds biggest study of its kind."


Does the actual study say this?

No, but authors of the study -- "Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review" -- surely are responsible for its misinterpretation and more. Their study actually reports that ¨Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

The authors' tentative wording -- "may reduce" -- belies their own data: The report's opening statement says the tested organic produce carried a 30 percent lower risk of exposure to pesticide residues. And, the report itself also says that "detectable pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples...and 38% of conventional produce samples." Isn't that's a greater than 80% exposure reduction?

In any case, the Stanford report's unorthodox measure "makes little practical or clinical sense," notes Charles Benbrook -- formerly Executive Director, Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences: What people "should be concerned about [is]... not just the number of [pesticide] residues they are exposed to" but the "health risk they face." Benbrook notes "a 94% reduction in health risk" from pesticides when eating organic foods.

Assessing pesticide-driven health risks weighs the toxicity of the particular pesticide. For example the widely-used pesticide atrazine, banned in Europe, is known to be "a risk factor in endocrine disruption in wildlife and reproductive cancers in laboratory rodents and humans."

"Very few studies" included by the Stanford researchers, notes Benbrook, "are designed or conducted in a way that could isolate the impact or contribution of a switch to organic food from the many other factors that influence a given individual's health." They "would be very expensive, and to date, none have been carried out in the U.S." [emphasis added].

In other words, simple prudence should have prevented these scientists from using "evidence" not designed to capture what they wanted to know.

Moreover, buried in the Stanford study is this all-critical fact: It includes no long-term studies of people consuming organic compared to chemically produced food: The studies included ranged from just two days to two years. Yet, it is well established that chemical exposure often takes decades to show up, for example, in cancer or neurological disorders.

Consider these studies not included: The New York Times notes three 2011 studies by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan that studied pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of an organophosphate pesticide. Once their children reached elementary school they "had, on average, I.Q.'s several points lower than those of their peers."

Thus, it is reprehensible for the authors of this overview to even leave open to possible interpretation that their compilation of short-term studies can determine anything about the human-health impact of pesticides.

What also disturbs me is that neither in their journal article nor in media interviews do the Stanford authors suggest that concern about "safer and healthier" might extend beyond consumers to the people who grow our food. They have health concerns, too!

Many choose organic to decrease chemicals in food production because of the horrific consequences farm workers and farmers suffer from pesticide exposure. U.S. farming communities are shown to be afflicted with, for example, higher rates of: "leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma" -- in addition to skin, lip, stomach, brain and prostate cancers," reports the National Cancer Institute. And, at a global level, "an estimated 3 million acute pesticide poisonings occur worldwide each year," reports the World Health Organization. Another health hazard of pesticides, not hinted at in the report, comes from water contamination by pesticides. They have made the water supply for 4.3 million Americans unsafe for drinking.

Finally, are organic foods more nutritious?

In their report, Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, and co-authors say only that "published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods." Yet, the most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing organic and non-organic, led by scientist Kirsten Brandt, a Scientist at the Human Nutrition Research Center at the UK's Newcastle University found organic fruits and vegetables, to have on "average 12% higher nutrient levels."

Bottom line for me? What we do know is that the rates of critical illnesses, many food-related --from allergies to Crohn's Disease -- are spiking and no one knows why. What we do know is that pesticide poisoning is real and lethal -- and not just for humans. In such a world is it not the height of irresponsibility to downplay the risks of exposure to known toxins?

Rachel Carson would be crying. Or, I hope, shouting until -- finally -- we all listen. "Simple precaution! Is that not commonsense?"
Frances Moore Lappé just released EcoMind: Changing the Way We Think to Create the World We Want (Nation Books) | For Common Dreams |


Bianca D (87)
Saturday September 8, 2012, 7:47 am
Sadly, no Kit, it isn't common sense... But it is *good* sense.
I loathe self serving tendentious studies and, frankly this one takes the cake. Shame on Stanford. A little searching shows some of the authors involved in some interesting conflicts of interest...

When the power of love overcomes the love of power [and cashola], the world will know peace.
Jimi Hendrix

Past Member (0)
Saturday September 8, 2012, 8:48 am
Thanks Kit. Even the most sincere/ardent organic farmer can't guarantee his crops won't be contaminated from drift and all the chemicals in chemtrails. But even mostly organic is better than out and out poison. Maybe some of the results were in a Money$anto coloring book. Susan has a petition:

Fiona O (565)
Saturday September 8, 2012, 9:05 am
Never, never eat any food or ingredient to food, if you cannot pronounce its name.

pam w (139)
Saturday September 8, 2012, 9:30 am
Olivia's right! Many "organic" farmers sit right next door to those who use chemicals. (In fact, there's NOTHING to suggest that ONE farmer can't have TWO crops, is there?)

I've never been convinced that ORGANIC means "MORE NUTRITIOUS."

A carrot is a carrot.

But, if I can reduce consumption of poisons....I'll gladly pay a few cents more.

Kathy B (106)
Saturday September 8, 2012, 10:07 am
I've been following most of the news bits since this article hit & haven't bee able to substantiate the claims, but one article claims one of the co-authors has ties to the tobacco industry, another claims the study was funded by Cargil.

Whether on not either of these claims is true, something very fishy is going on here.

Kit B (276)
Saturday September 8, 2012, 10:15 am

A carrot is carrot, till the toxin in the carrot is killing your genetic materials. This is a slow death, and of course we can not guarantee that crops can be protected from crap in the soil, water and air from the likes of Monsanto and Cargill etc.... But we can buy locally and try to keep a careful watch on what we buy.

I have read the same things Kathy and no we are not getting the final answers. Maybe those answers would just make us angry and feeling more impotent than we do?

marie C (163)
Saturday September 8, 2012, 3:51 pm
Yes I agree with Kit ' perhaps the answers would just make us angry and more impotent than we do"

Edith B (146)
Saturday September 8, 2012, 9:27 pm
We never get all the answers, but this study is blatantly in favor of the chemical companies.

Past Member (0)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 5:23 pm
Thanks for sharing.

Susanne R (235)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 10:08 pm
A "flawed" study, perhaps? I wonder "who" funded it...

wendy webber (28)
Saturday September 15, 2012, 5:27 am
Monsanto probably funded it?! Poor research abounds as we all know and I would not be surprised to find an ulterior motive in this research/funding. I want to contribute as little as possible to chemical use and promote what is safer for the planet/people.It just seems to "make sense" to me to use beneficial insects, natural repellents, and so forth but once again these paths require more overseeing and interaction but it could produce jobs for folks. I think our estrangement from the dirt/earth assists in not valuing either. We need bugs,clean air and water. We need every piece that is this circle called life.When we knock out a section that is vital, it is a slippery slope from there.I know I am preaching to the choir here but simple seems to make sense.

Bianca D (87)
Saturday September 15, 2012, 10:23 pm
Agricultural giant Cargill and others behind anti-organic 'Stanford Study'
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Green Lifestyle

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.