Like many people I was surprised to read that a Stanford study showed conventional foods had the same nutritional value as organic foods. How could that be possible? I needed to dig further. As I dug a little deeper I found like too many studies, the Stanford study dangerously isolates a finding from its larger context. It significantly plays down pesticides and neglects to mention that up to 20,000 United States agricultural workers get a pesticide-poisoning diagnosis each year. While the study says that “the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics was 33 percent higher among conventional chicken and pork than organic alternatives,” it apparently didn’t seek to explore how consuming antibiotic-resistant bacteria might be considered “non-nutritious.” After finishing my book EAU I also realized who finances these studies also has a lot of influence to the outcome of these studies. Eventhough no “external” funding was provided for this study there was “internal” funding. Information of this internal funding seems to point to Cargill (the largest privately held company in the United States) and other companies with interest in Monsanto, McDonalds and Walmart. No surprise here to find BIG corporations trying to persuade the public on what to eat by distorting the facts. Reports still indicate a fesh, organic, whole food is the most nutritional dense way to eat food. Fight your battles wisely and read your labels.

Comments are closed.