The Dirt

On September 3, 2012 the New York Times published an article about a Stanford University study that allegedly dispels the nutritional advantages of organic food. The article, Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce, explains "[scientists] concluded that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts, which tend to be far less expensive. Nor were they any less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria like E. coli." The response from the sustainable agriculture community regarding this study has been tremendous. Below we have provided links to articles we believe best respond to this study. 

5 Ways the Stanford Study Sells Organics Short

By Tom Philpott, Mother Jones
September 5, 2012

In reality, though, the study in some places makes a strong case for organic—though you'd barely know it from the language the authors use. And in places where it finds organic wanting, key information gets left out. To assess the state of science on organic food and its health benefits, the authors performed what's known among academics as a "meta-analysis"—they gathered all the research papers they could find on the topic dating back decades, eliminated ones that didn't meet their criteria for scientific rigor, and summarized the results... (Read More)

Don't give up on organic food, our experts urge

ConsumerReports.com
September 5, 2012

A new review of previous research on organic food is getting a lot of media attention for concluding that the published literature "lacks strong evidence" that organic food is significantly more nutritious than conventionally grown food. But news reports covering the findings may be oversimplifying or distorting what the study really found, according to our in-house experts, and consumers shouldn't be misled into believing that there isn't a benefit to paying more for organics, particularly for certain populations...(Read More)

Stanford Scientists Shockingly Reckless on Health Risk And Organics

By Frances Moore Lappe, The Huffington Post
September 6, 2012

In any case, the Stanford report's unorthodox measure "makes little practical or clinical sense," notes Charles Benbrook -- formerly Executive Director, Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences: What people "should be concerned about [is]... not just the number of [pesticide] residues they are exposed to" but the "health risk they face." Benbrook notes "a 94% reduction in health risk" from pesticides when eating organic foods... (Read More)

Scientists Tied to Tobacco Industry Propaganda, and Funding from Monsanto, Turn Attention to Organic Food

Cornucopia Institute
September 12th, 2012

Not surprisingly, the study’s glaring errors, both in understanding the important and complex differences between organic and conventional foods and in the researchers’ flawed choice of research methods, prompted organic advocates to look closely at financial ties between Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, which supports the researchers, and the chemical and agribusiness industry... (Read More)