A little something from the National Cancer Institute ..... and one of the reasons Franceis Moore Lappe found the Stanford study "recklessly irresponsible"!
For example, a study from the AHS reported in 2009 that people who use the weed killer imazethapyr have increased risks of bladder cancer
and colon cancer. Imazethapyr is in a class of chemicals known as aromatic amines. It was first used in the United States in 1989, and, since then, has been one of the most commonly used herbicides for killing weeds in soybean, dry bean, alfalfa, and other crop fields.
Studies in mice and rats led the EPA to classify imazethapyr as unlikely to be a human carcinogen. But, in the AHS, people with the highest cumulative lifetime exposure had more than twice the risk (137 percent increase in risk) of developing bladder cancer compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical. Similarly, the risk of colon cancer (mostly tumors in the proximal colon, where food enters during digestion) was nearly twice as high as normal (78 percent increased risk) among farmers who had the highest level of exposure compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical. [/quote]
So how many of the consumers of non-organic food use a weed killer as part of their diet? I cannot see how that could be excluded from a study on the differences between consumption of organic and non-organic foods.
In addition, a condition called monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), which commonly precedes multiple myeloma, was found in blood samples of men in the AHS at twice the rate it was found in blood samples of men in Minnesota who were not part of the AHS cohort. This increased risk of MGUS was observed among men who used the chlorinated insecticide dieldrin, the fumigant mixture carbon-tetrachloride/carbon disulfide, the fungicide chlorothalonil, and possibly other pesticides. Now, a larger study within the AHS is looking more closely at the risk of MGUS with use of specific pesticides.
Wow, if one were to travel back in time one might find some connection to non-organic food and dieldrin, but that pesticide has not been used in the US for over 25 years. I cannot fathom why such an important aspect was ignored by the "misleading" study.
Given this information, I wonder why Franceis Moore Lappe found the Stanford study "recklessly irresponsible"?
You are hilarious Wayne. Clutiching at straws ......
You mean like your example of a "problem" with non-organic food the "flawed study" did not recognize because it has not been used since the mid-1980s? Or the problem with a herbicide that was also not recognized because those who consume the food do not apply herbicides and the problem is only related to the application? No, the straws are firmly grasped by your position and they are not very large straws either.[/quote]
Wayne, the writing is on the wall ...... the Stanford team *spun* the headlines .... Why? I don't yet know for sure, but they are up to no good and I have a very, very strong suspicion that it has something to do with their funders! Remarkably irresponsible! Why did Frances Moore Lappe find the Stanford study recklessly irresponsible?
It was a Strawman to begin with!
I read the summary of the Stanford study, which the BBC didn’t even bother to link to online, always a bad sign. Call me cynical but at no time have I ever thought organic food contained more vitamins or nutrients. Why would it? The suggestion is a straw man that lazy news outlets are happy to beat into the ground with a special science hoe. http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2012/09/ ... nic-study/ Consumers can markedly reduce their intake of pesticide residues and their exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria by choosing organic produce and meat, according to researchers at Stanford University who reviewed a massive body of scientific studies on the much-debated issue.
“The study confirms the message that EWG ... have been sending for years, that consumers who eat organic fruits and vegetables can significantly reduce pesticide concentrations in their bodies,” Sonya Lunder, senior analyst at Environmental Working Group, said. .... the risks of dietary exposures to synthetic pesticides, especially organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides, are greatest during pregnancy and childhood, when the brain and nervous system are most vulnerable. These are two groups that should really avoid eating foods with high levels of pesticide residues.”
Based on its review of the available research, the Stanford team also concluded that conventionally raised meat harbors more antibiotic resistant bacteria. It found that consumers of non-organic chicken or pork are 33 percent more likely to ingest three or more strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria than those who eat organic meat.
“What jumped out at us in this study is that conventionally-raised meat treated heavily with antibiotics is much more likely to carry drug-resistant bacteria than meat produced on organic farms,” said EWG Senior Analyst Kari Hamerschlag, who focuses on organic and conventional agriculture. “Antibiotics, which are banned in organic production, promote the development of resistant super-bugs that are a serious risk to human health.”
EWG noted that the Stanford study also did not directly address the important environmental and public health benefits that result from reduced pesticide and antibiotic use. Synthetic pesticides can kill insect pollinators, harm wildlife and farmworkers, and often end up in the air and water. Tests conducted in 2011 by the US Geological Survey found that glyphosate (commonly sold as Roundup), one of the most widely used herbicides, was a ubiquitous contaminant in air, water and rainfall in two Midwest states.
“Organic produce and meat products live up to their promise,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “Consumers selecting organic produce ingest fewer pesticides. They also eat meats that harbor fewer deadly bacteria. You can rest assured that organic food provides a healthier choice for people and the planet.”
While the Stanford study briefly mentioned previous research on the effects of organic foods on children’s health, it did not focus on the growing body of studies published in the last decade that have demonstrated children’s higher sensitivity to the effects of neurotoxic pesticides.
“Studies that have come out in the last two years have linked exposures to organophosphate pesticides with increased risks of ADHD and lower IQ in children, and to low birth weight and early gestation among newborns,” said Cook. “The authors of this study, for whatever reason, decided not to focus on this new and troubling research showing that a diet of food high in certain pesticides could pose such serious and lasting health impacts in children. That’s a glaring omission, in my opinion.”
And from Heather Malick in the Toronto Star – “Organic food hits the spot”
I do assume, however, that organic food contains fewer pesticides, which is why it’s called “organic.” Since it’s a harder slog growing fruits and vegetables hand-swept for pests with baby hairbrushes than dosed with things like Bacillus subtilis, boscalid, pyraclostrobin, pyrimethanil and trifloxystrobin, I’m willing to pay more. I’m not impressed when non-organic food is lauded at “within acceptable contaminant levels.” Who decides those levels? Are they science-based or simply industry-friendly? http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... er-for-you
You see, the meta-analytic study, which studied other brief and often unreliable studies (17 on humans, 223 on food) found two studies showing “significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children eating organic food,” and 30 per cent less pesticide contamination over-all. Most media ignored this, .....