“..At the national level, media organizations frothed with news about Stanford University researchers supposedly determining that organic food food is no more healthy than conventionally produced food.
In the rush to generate audience-grabbing headlines, most of these news outlets simply regurgitated the Stanford press release -
- which deliberately stressed that researchers ”did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives.”
The word “deliberately” is important here —
as watchdog groups soon noted Stanford is a recipient of corporate largess from agribusinesses such as Cargill -
- which have an obvious vested financial interest in denigrating organics.
Additionally one of the researchers in question had previously been connected to infamous tobacco industry efforts to pay for skewed science.
In light of those inconvenient truths Stanford may have made the calculated decision to promote the part of the study that denigrated organics -
- and downplay the part of the report that, according to the Los Angeles Times, found “evidence of higher blood levels of pesticide residues among children who ate conventionally grown food” -
- and “antibiotic-resistant microbes more commonly found among conventionally reared chicken and pork.”..”
go to source/story>>>