Health & Wellness
The latest study to demonize foods free of GMO ingredients and mercury-containing high-fructose corn syrup ultimately once again fails to accurately address key aspects of the conventional verses organic debate and even falls short of properly addressing the limited scope of concerns it does attempt to analyze.
You can see even from the comments on many of the mainstream reports that readers quickly saw through the eroneous 'organic is the same as conventional' headlines and began highlighting the many inaccuracies of the research.
As I outline in the video, the study completely fails to account for key factors such as the presence of GMOs, artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose, mercury (such as that admittedly contained in high-fructose corn syrup), BPA, and much more. It also does not even properly address the two topics it seeks to address concerning the presence antibiotics and chemical residue.
The researchers fail first of all to reveal the difference between the organic food and conventional food pesticides, and then go on to state that organic food actually does have lower pesticide levels.
They then state that it doesn't matter that conventional foods have higher pesticide, herbicide, and insecticide levels because they don't 'exceed legal limits'. They then fail to mention that Roundup, Monsanto's best-selling herbicide, has been linked to DNA damage, infertility, and over 29 other associated diseases. Yet they insist that there is no real difference. That is not even taking into consideration the thousands of other studies on pesticides and insecticides, such as the 3 pieces of mainstream peer-reviewed research linking pesticide exposure to lower IQ.
Apparently these factors don't matter to the Stanford researchers, who utterly ignored them as they compiled their analysis that actually contradicts itself over and over again.
The report also admittedly states that organic foods have a drastically lower percentage chance of containing antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the kind that produces mutant superbugs that cannot be treated with antibiotics. The very same kind that have evaded all antibiotics and 'super drugs' and are virtually untreatable by mainstream medicine. A new strain of resistant tuberculosis known as the 'white plague' has even started to spread that is the result of rampant antibiotic use across the globe.
Conventional farm animals are dosed up with these antibiotics to prevent them from dying as a result of the serious illnesses they come down with. The animals are stricken from both eating a poor diet often full of genetically modified grain as well as sitting stationary in a claustrophobic area for years. Around 30% of cows in the United States are also injected with Monsanto's genetically modified synthetic hormone known as rBGH, which is banned in 27 countries worldwide. Apparently the fact that the genetically engineered rBGH uses molecules and DNA sequences that are the result of molecular cloning doesn't matter to the Stanford researchers.
The list could go on and on. Overall, it seems quite apparent that the researchers really have no idea what the word 'health' entails. While even the very few aspects they examine seem to heavily favor organic food items, the hundreds of other essential factors are wildly overlooked in the report that does nothing but push back the general public's notion of what true health is by about 30 years.
Reader Comments
Exactly ! It's easy these days to see where such research comes from.. somebody in Stanford made a few millions from the GMO companies to put this out (they even made sure the "Stanford" brand lends credence to this nonsense report). Clearly the Gene modification companies and pesticide companies have joined hands and are feeling the heat of having to label foods that contain GMO.
We can expect one more research paper supporting this Stanford claim within the next 4 months, just to reinforce psychologically what we have read now.
We can expect one more research paper supporting this Stanford claim within the next 4 months, just to reinforce psychologically what we have read now.
Public-university researchers get cash
--— for studying GMOs and the shaft for studying organic ag
As the biotech industry has since exploded, the impact on the land-grant system is perhaps not unexpected. “Researchers want to be at both the cutting edge of science and the cutting edge of the marketplace,” says Andrew Neighbour, until recently the director of UCLA’s office on the business applications of faculty research. (The entire University of California system functions as that state’s “land-grant institution.”) And so the advent of patentable and profitable plants (and animals, for that matter) has meant a shift in research focus away new knowledge and towards the creation of marketable products.
The land-grant institutions find themselves in a pickle. “On the one hand,” says Paul Gepts, professor of agronomy and plant genetics at UC Davis, schools pushed into the free market have developed the habit of patenting research and found a taste for private business deals. But on the other hand, “they have a public role where the information they produce should be available to all.”
As things stand, “public universities,” says Dr. Gepts, “are a contradiction.”
[Link]
--— for studying GMOs and the shaft for studying organic ag
As the biotech industry has since exploded, the impact on the land-grant system is perhaps not unexpected. “Researchers want to be at both the cutting edge of science and the cutting edge of the marketplace,” says Andrew Neighbour, until recently the director of UCLA’s office on the business applications of faculty research. (The entire University of California system functions as that state’s “land-grant institution.”) And so the advent of patentable and profitable plants (and animals, for that matter) has meant a shift in research focus away new knowledge and towards the creation of marketable products.
The land-grant institutions find themselves in a pickle. “On the one hand,” says Paul Gepts, professor of agronomy and plant genetics at UC Davis, schools pushed into the free market have developed the habit of patenting research and found a taste for private business deals. But on the other hand, “they have a public role where the information they produce should be available to all.”
As things stand, “public universities,” says Dr. Gepts, “are a contradiction.”
[Link]
Follow the money,... Who financed the "research".