Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFive Ways the Stanford Study Sells Organics Short
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/five-ways-stanford-study-underestimates-organic-foodIs organic food little more than a trumped-up marketing scheme, another way for affluent consumers to waste money? A just-released paper by Stanford researchersand the reaction to it by the mediasuggests as much. (Abstract here; I have a copy of the full study, but can't upload it for copyright reasons.)
"Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce," declared a New York Times headline. "Organic food hardly healthier, study suggests," announced CBS News. "Is organic healthier? Study says not so much, but its key reason consumers buy," The Washington Post grumbled.
In reality, though, the study in some places makes a strong case for organicthough you'd barely know it from the language the authors use. And in places where it finds organic wanting, key information gets left out. To assess the state of science on organic food and its health benefits, the authors performed what's known among academics as a "meta-analysis"they gathered all the research papers they could find on the topic dating back decades, eliminated ones that didn't meet their criteria for scientific rigor, and summarized the results.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
9 replies, 1239 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Five Ways the Stanford Study Sells Organics Short (Original Post)
gollygee
Sep 2012
OP
ananda
(28,876 posts)1. Well I've been wondering..
.. whether the GMO industry was behind this
Stanford study.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)2. K&R for real science
There are holes in the Stanford meta-analysis study wide enough to drive a semi through. Kudos to Tom Philpott and Mother Jones for delving deeper than the distorted headline.
-app
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)4. +1 and kick
and rec
Berlum
(7,044 posts)3. Excellent point farmbo
Thanks for posting. Most informative.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)5. The report - funded by an "outside source" -- says nothing about the "chemical cocktail"
that comes over time with a diet of corporate processed GMO food-like product
jeff47
(26,549 posts)6. I had to click through, since you neglected to list the 5 ways
And now I know why - there's only 1 way, restated 4 additional times.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)7. So sorry for the existence of copyright laws. n/t
Berlum
(7,044 posts)8. So sorry for your inability to make important distinctions
jeff47
(26,549 posts)9. The distinction between "there's less pesticide" and "there's less pesticide".
What is listed are reasons why "there's less pesticide" may be a good thing. But those are not additional differences between organic and "regular". There's only one difference.