© pakalertpress.comSo how is the mainstream media lying about this? By fudging the facts, of course. For starters, the “study” isn’t even a study. It was just a review of other studies. No new laboratory analysis was done whatsoever!
A widely reported Stanford University study
1 concluding there is little difference in the healthfulness and safety of conventional and organic foods has been criticized by experts in the environmental health sciences for overlooking the growing body of evidence on the adverse effects of pesticides. Critics take to task the authors' omission of relevant studies and overinterpretation of the data.
The meta-analysis of 237 studies, published in the September 2012
Annals of Internal Medicine, largely focused on nutrient content and viral/bacterial/fungal contamination of organic versus conventionally grown foods. Nine studies reporting pesticide residues, including three of residues exceeding federal limits,
were included in summary analyses.
The authors concluded that the studies reviewed do not support what they call the "widespread perception" that organic foods overall are nutritionally superior to conventional ones, although eating an organic diet may reduce exposures to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
1 A Stanford press release quoted senior author Dena Bravata as saying, "There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health."
2 (According to the Stanford Medical Center press office, Bravata is no longer doing interviews about the study.)
Comment: Check out our health forum for vital information on how to change your diet and balance your hormones, and don't forget to breathe your way out of stress with our Éiriú Eolas Stress Control, Healing and Rejuvenation Program.