There was a media frenzy yesterday when Stanford researchers released a study to be published in the Annals of Internal Medicine which outlines their findings of an analysis of existing studies on the benefits of organic foods. Yes, that confused us too. Basically it was a “study of studies.” While the Stanford researchers intended to discover whether or not there are any differences between organic and conventionally farmed foods, they missed the point entirely when it comes to highlighting the benefits of eating organic foods.
Media Frenzy
Every major news outlet from Fox News, to CNN, to MSNBC and more, were quick to jump on this organic-bashing bandwagon. They did not take Stanford to task on what turned out to be a very misleading study. With all of the controversy surrounding Prop 37 (GMO Labeling Proposition in California) one would have to wonder why such an established and reputable institution failed to explain the long-term effects of Pesticides, Hormones and Antibiotics that are in conventional and processed foods. It is also more alarming, that none of these media powerhouses called them out on it.
Pesticide Levels
The Stanford researchers reviewed approximately 267 studies that were published by other researchers. This means that they did not conduct their own studies, interview participants or conduct lab tests. Instead, they depended on the findings of other researchers. The Stanford researchers, themselves, admit that the published literature regarding organic versus conventional foods is limited and may contain publication or industry bias.
——————-
Read the Misleading Report here – http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html
——————-
The “studies” they reviewed did not contain long term findings either. The experiments only covered periods ranging from two days and two years. In other words, although the researchers admit that other findings indicate there are higher levels of pesticides present in conventionally grown foods, Stanford did not conduct any research that showed the effects of decades of eating foods that are grown using pesticides, antibiotics and hormones. Instead of conceding that if their initial findings indicate increased levels of pesticides, further long term studies may provide significant insight into the impact of eating conventionally grown foods, they simply cop out and say “the significance of the current findings is unclear.”
Antibiotic Impact
The Stanford researchers also fail to discuss at any length the impact of the use of antibiotics in conventionally grown foods. Although the “studies” they reviewed indicate that there is an approximately 33 percent higher level (one-third) of antibiotic resistant bacteria in conventionally farmed pork and chicken, the Stanford researchers failed to discuss the impact antibiotic resistant bacteria has on humans. This is a huge factor that was simply glazed over.
The research states,
Two studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets did find lower levels of pesticide residues in the urine of children on organic diets, though the significance of these findings on child health is unclear. Additionally, organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the clinical significance of this is also unclear.
What, in this quotation above, is unclear about organic foods not being as healthy? Does Stanford believe that high levels of pesticide residue in children is normal and healthy?
In addition to the body toxins from accumulated pesticide use, antibiotic resistant meat presents the risk of contracting dangerous illnesses that will be resistant to treatment. Additionally, high use of antibiotics contributes to poor gut health in humans, since it kills of needed beneficial bacteria in the intestines. This can result in difficulty absorbing nutrients, compromised immune system function and intestinal dysfunction.
When reviewing research, it is important to understand how the research was conducted to determine whether or not it presents helpful information. The Stanford researchers conducted a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis simply reviews what other researchers have studied and found. What is revealing about the Stanford research is that there have been few studies about the long term effects of eating conventional foods that are grown using high levels of pesticides and antibiotics. Although there is ample evidence to suggest the impact these farming methods have on health, Stanford has not conducted and published research regarding changes in human health function when exposed to these chemicals.
Additionally, the Stanford researchers did not extend their own study parameters to consider the reasoning behind purchasing and eating organically grown foods to include concern for the environmental impact of conventional farming.
Research can be great, it can validate or disprove theories. However, it is also limited by the methods used and the knowledge of the researchers themselves. As with all things, it is important to inform yourself and critically evaluate what you read before making a decision for yourself.
Tell us what you think about Stanford’s misleading article and the media frenzy that followed.
– The Alternative Daily
