EnviroLink Forum

It would behoove you, Fos, to ask more.

Maybe they should have.
That the study is "recklessly irresponsible" is the opinion of Lappe, one that I tend to agree with although I might give more weight to mainstream media being even more reckless.

"Dr. Chuck Benbrook of the Organic Center wrote a full technical review of the Stanford study, noting a variety of methodological flaws like undercounting and the failure to meaningfully define terms. Key among the flaws is a misleading math trick which allows the study to depict the increased risk of exposure to pesticide residues on food at around 30 percent. In fact, the data show “an overall 81 percent lower risk or incidence of one or more pesticide residues in the organic samples compared to the conventional samples.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-p ... 64433.html

You decide.

I'm sure it would. The difference is that I wouldn't confound my questions with conclusions. Questions, even good questions, aren't necessarily indication that a study is flawed. Furthermore, I know how to obtain and interpret the answers scientifically.



Considering how you were questioning bias of the Stanford study, you referencing an Organic Center source and agreeing with it is pretty ripe. Pray tell, what "math trick" was the good Dr. referencing?

_________________
TANG SOO!

Now, why would there only be one standard for such things?

Here is the review and please note how many times Dr. Benbrook quotes himself in the review.

http://www.tfrec.wsu.edu/pdfs/P2566.pdf

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

[/quote]


Okay! Here we go ....

Benbrook,C.2008a.Simplifying the pesticide risk equation: the organic option.
The Organic Center,Boulder,CO.
www.organic-­‐center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=125

Benbrook,C. 2008b.New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-­‐Based OrganicFood,
TheOrganic Center,Boulder,CO.
www.organic-­‐center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=126

Benbrook,C.M.2011a.
TheOrganicCenter’s “DietaryRisk Index”
-tracking relative pesticide risks in food and beverages.
The Organic Center, Boulder, CO.
www.organic-­‐center.org/reportfiles/DRIfinal_09-­‐10-­‐2011.pdf

Benbrook,C.M.2011bTransforming Jan Doe’s diet,
TheOrganicCenter,Boulder,Co.
www.organic-­‐center.org/reportfiles/Transforming_Jane_Does_Diet_9-­‐15-­‐11.pdf

Bouchard,M.E.,etal.,“PrenatalExposuret OPPesticidesandIQin7-­‐YearOldChildren,”
Environmental Health Perspectives online April 21, 2011
Crews etal.,

“Epigenetictransgenerationa linheritance of altered stress responses,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
publishedonline May 21,2012)

Engel,S.M.,et al., “Prenatal Exposure to OPs, Paraoxonase 1, and Cognitive Development in Children,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
online
April 21, 2011

Garry, V.F., Harkins, M.E., Erickson,L.L.,Long-­‐Simpson,L.K.,Holland,S.E.&Burroughs,B.L
2002. Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living
in the red river valley of Minnesota,USA.
Environmental Health Perspectives110:p.441-­‐449.
Lim et al., 2009.

“ChronicExposure to the herbicide, Atrazine,Causes Mitochondrial Dysfunction and InsulinResistance,”
PlosOne, Vol.4 (4):e5186
Looft,Torey et al.
2012.

“In-­‐feed antibiotic effects on the swine intestinal microbiome,”Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of
Sciences,
Vol.109 (5):1691-­‐1696.
Lu,C.et al.,
2008,

“Dietary intake and its contribution to longitudinalorganophosphorus pesticide exposure in
urban/suburban children,”
Environmental
Health Perspectives,
Vol.116(4):pages537-­‐542)
Lu,C. etal., 2006.

“Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children’s Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus
Pesticides,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
Vol.114(2):pages260-­‐263.September4,2012

Office of Inspector General U.S.EPA,
2006a.

Measuring the impact of the Food Quality Protection Act: challenges and opportunities.
Report No.
2006-­‐P-­‐00028,
August 1,

U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.Office of Inspector General,U.S. EPA,
2006b.
supplemental report: details on dietary risk data in support of Report
No.2006-­‐P-­‐00028,

Measuring the impact of the Food QualityProtectionAct:challengesand opportunities.
U.S.EPA,
Washington,D.C.
Rauh,V.,etal.,
“7-­‐Year

Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos,
CommonAgriculturalInsecticide,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
online April21, 2011
Schreinemachers,D.

2003. Birth malformations and other adverse perinatal outcomes infour U.S. wheat-­‐producing states.
Environmental Health Perspectives
111: p. 1259-­‐1264.
USDA Pesticide Data Program,
2012

and multiple years.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/science
Vandenberg et al., 2012.

“Hormones and Endocrine-­‐Disrupting Chemicals: Low-­‐Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses,”
EndocrineReviews,
Vol.33 (3):pages 378-­‐455.

Four for Benbrook as well as a host of many other researchers includng the USDA and EPA.

Seems like Benbrook did his homework. Not surprising though as he's been at it a long time and has gained a fair bit of knowledge and expertise in the area. He states:

I am among a small group of people who, by virtue of professional interests and responsibilities over the
last decade, have read over 200 of the 298 references cited in the Stanford paper.
I have analyzed the results of dozens of them and carried out meta-­‐analyses on this body of literature
My goal has been to integrate into a public-­‐health context the insights gained from research in several
disparate fields.

Why shouldn't he quote himself ...... along with 15 or so other researchers ?!?

Facts are a funny thing, are they not? It would behoove AF to learn what to do with them. Questions are fine so long as they aren't confounded with conclusions.[/quote]

It would behoove you, Fos, to ask more.[/quote]

I'm sure it would. The difference is that I wouldn't confound my questions with conclusions. Questions, even good questions, aren't necessarily indication that a study is flawed. Furthermore, I know how to obtain and interpret the answers scientifically.



Considering how you were questioning bias of the Stanford study, you referencing an Organic Center source and agreeing with it is pretty ripe.

[/quote]

You're kidding, right? You mean to say you have joined in on this conversation without even reading the links provided?

Four references, but those references are quoted more than anything else.



Well, it does indicate a possible bias on his part since he seems to hold a different opinion on the conclusions. That would be a problem for you if the same situation were seen in the initial paper being discussed. Also, weren't your quotes indicating a problem with meta-analyses ... except for those with which they agree?

I did note the reference to the Brandt study supposedly being better at qualification of the papers criteria for the meta-analysis which was then followed by a statement indicating the dataset between the two had significant overlap .... which would indicate either both were good or bad at that determination, but not that one was good and the other bad unless there is a double standerd being applied.

The Brandt team covered essentially the same literature as the Stanford team. They used different and more rigorous criteria to judge whether a published study was properly designed and conducted and produced reliable results. Still, the studies included in their meta-­‐analysis largely overlaps with those analyzed by the Stanford team.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The links you provided did not explain the math trick.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No. What it indicates is that the Stanford Study came out with similar findings to that of the Brandt study but down-played those results into a conclusion that produced those headlines, under-emphasizing and offering "tepid" conclusions to research which showed the value of organics food nutritionally as well as as its lower toxicity.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frances-m ... 61635.html


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.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott ... ganic-food

And, from Benbrook: Note the paragraphs where he explains the de-emphasis on Dr. Lu's work. "Although these studies "suggest" that the consumption of organic fruits and vegetables may significantly reduce pesticide exposure in children ....."

Meta analysis is a widely used tool, but it is subject to error and bias.
Benbrook has shown how the Stanford study has fallen prey to this weakness, but this does not mean that all studies that have used meta-analysis come up short. If Benbrook's use of meta-analysis has produced erroneous results in his studies, it would have to be shown

As for the "math trick" ..... this was a term used by a reporter from Huffington Post to describe the shortcomings of the analysis used. All one need do is read the links.

Not even close. The "more rigorous criteria" was supposed to indicate the Brandt study was "better" in choosing the proper data to use, but the dataset was very similar so that was a red herring. The discussion at this point is not dealing with conclusions but hlw the different studies are chosen to be included. The "better" criteria resulted in about the same choices as the "worse" criteria. The conclusions based on the data do not have to agree nor does it indicate either is really any "better" or "worse" than the other. The Brandt use of strong assumptions and the model built upon those assumptions are not what I would call a positive for that study.



You do not comprehend the use of averages do you? There is no guarantee of a reduction to exposure or anything by buying organic products. If one is buying the best non-organic product and switched to the worst organic product the difference may not be measurable.


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.



A suggestion of a possible reduction is something one should clearly trumpet ..... unless the effect of the reduction is not significant. If one cuts exposure by half but that decrease in exposure does not impact any significant health criteria there is no real effect connected to the decrease.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No, there were other quotes you used claiming the meta-analysis process was flawed. If ou use a faulty source it will haunt you.




Unless one just claims he is biased and has some ulterior motive as was claimed of the current study .... right? Maybe he spoke with someone at some time who worked for the tobacco industry?



No, it was a reference to how the data was presented. If you do not understand what is being said, how can you hope to hold a rational discussion on the subject?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

According to Benbrook's review, there were 5% of ~80 organic samples with a detectable pesticide concentration and there were 33% of 4000+ non-organic samples. Benbrook believes the difference in precentages shold be converted to another percentage while the study merely subtracts one percentage from the other to give a differential percentage. This is the "math trick" discussion.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Yeah, and maybe they talked about growing organic tobacco.

As for the "math trick" ..... this was a term used by a reporter from Huffington Post to describe the shortcomings of the analysis used. All one need do is read the links.

No, it was a reference to how the data was presented. If you do not understand what is being said, how can you hope to hold a rational discussion on the subject?[/quote]

It WAS referenced by the reporter who called it a "math trick". What is being said is all too clear. In the case of the Stanford study, the tool came up short. This is clear.

Yes, they called it a "math trick" but it was not related to a shortcoming with the analysis as you initially claimed, but it was related to how the results were presented, which is a huge difference.

As for what you believe is clear and what is actually the case, that is an even larger difference.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein