Dr. Charles Benbrook Breaks Down Flaws in Stanford Organic Food Study

When the Stanford study came out on 9-4-12 on whether organic foods were safer and healthier than conventional alternatives, Dr. Charles Benbrook responded with A systematic review of their evaluation and reporting methods and found many flaws.
Sept. 20, 2012 - PRLog -- When Stanford University published a paper that was supposed to be a comprehensive review of published literature that would determine the differences between the nutritional quality and safety of organic and conventional foods, the news media jumped all over the story reporting that people may want to “rethink” their use of organic foods because it was not nutritionally superior to conventional.  

First organic is a farm system that has to follow strict government guidelines that prohibit the use of pesticides, GMOs, antibiotics and GMO growth hormones commonly used in conventional farming practices.  They are not allowed to use sewage sludge or petroleum based fertilizers either.  There is nothing in the definition of organic that makes any claim to higher nutritional content and yet they are being criticized for not meeting some standard that has not even been defined.

For anyone that would take the time to study all of the research, and examine the differences in soil microbiology, logic would say there has to be a difference.

Dr. Charles Benbrook from the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University and for many years served as Director for The Organic Center, is one of the few people out there that has actually read 200 of the 298 references cited in the Stanford paper.  He’s intimately connected to dozens of published research studies on organics and pesticides after analyzing the results of individual studies and conducting meta analyses on the body of literature (Benbrook, 2008, “New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant Based Organic Food”).  

Dr. Benbrook stated in his paper, “Initial Reflections on the Annals of Internal Medicine Paper “Are Organic Foods Safer and Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?  A Systematic Review“ that we should be examining the consumption of organic food in conjunction with other healthy diet choices such as fresh, whole food as a health promotion investment that will bring large returns to all of us as an individual, family, and society.  

In his review Dr. Benbrook points out important information that was not included, and flaws in the way they reported their conclusions.  For example Dr. Benbrook’s analysis determined a 94% reduction in health risk compared to the Stanford 30% figure.  Reducing your health risk by 94% by eating organic food would seem significant to people wanting to decrease their risk of disease.

Dr. Benbrook also noted the strong evidence of a link between pre-natal organophosphate (OP) insecticide exposure and an increase in risk for lower IQ, autism, ADHD, and asthma.  According to Dr. Benbrook the impact of this exposure during pregnancy can be evident long after birth with the possibility of retarded motor function, intelligence, and aberrant behavior as children grow up.

Ignoring evidence that can impact our future food supplies could be devastating in ways we may not even be able to imagine.  Monsanto is now zero for zero and has failed on all promises made for their GMO crops,  Shouldn’t we question why we are giving billions of dollars in taxpayer money to these industrial farms and GMO seed/pesticide companies when they take our money and grow cheap food that is making us fat.

If billions of dollars were invested in making organic fruits and vegetables more plentiful and cheaper it could change the lives of many Americans and ultimately save billions in healthcare dollars.

One thing Monsanto has succeeded in doing is creating 25 new breeds of superweeds that won’t die no matter how much pesticide is applied and are actually mutating so that they are becoming so thick that stems can puncture tractor tires and damage farm equipment.  Damage that can cost the farmer thousands of dollars they can’t afford.  

In addition to superweeds, antibiotic resistant bacteria originates in farm animals and are then transferred to us, another subject Dr. Benbrook has researched extensively.

Find out directly from Dr. Charles Benbrook what the Stanford study did not tell you, and why the information left out could include some of the most significant information we have learned so far.  

Pesticides have been linked to the disappearance of bees and butterflies and yet the new USDA policy is to fast track approval of new GMO seeds to increase pesticide use of even more harmful poisons such as  agent orange.

Tune in to Smart Health Talk today, September 20th from 4-5:00 pm PST to hear what Dr. Benbrook uncovered in his review.

Anyone can listen to the show live from anywhere in the world.  Go to KCAARadio.com and click on top left hand corner icon that gives you the option to watch the show on USTREAM or listen on “Tune In.”  If you have a “Tune In” radio app on your phone you can just type in “KCAA Radio 1050 AM” and listen like you were in the studio with us.  If you miss a show you can catch up with podcasts are on KCAARadio.com when you click Elaine McFadden’s picture, or you can find them on the SmartHealthTalk.com website under “podcast tab.”
Email:***@smarthealthtalk.com Email Verified
Tags:Dr. Charles Benbrook, Gmos, Organic, Pesticides, Stanford
Industry:Food, Health
Location:Redlands - California - United States
Account Email Address Verified     Account Phone Number Verified     Disclaimer     Report Abuse
Smart Health Talk Radio Show PRs
Trending News
Most Viewed
Top Daily News

Like PRLog?
Click to Share