Another smart take-down of the Stanford organic study, by Jim Riddle, Univ of Minnesota

Stanford Study Flawed

Another smart take-down of the Stanford organic study, by Jim Riddle, Univ of Minnesota

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page , Farm Issues page and our Health issues page . A recent press release from the Stanford School of Medicine read, "Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods."[1] The headline could just have easily read, "Despite billions spent on research and subsidies, conventional foods found more dangerous than organic." The Stanford study was striking in several regards: 1) No new research was conducted - the Stanford team simply reviewed existing studies; 2) The review included research conducted under different sets of organic standards; 3) The review included research conducted prior to 2002, when USDA National Organic Program Regulations took effect; and 4) The review concluded that organic foods consistently contain fewer pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and sign...

Full article: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26237.cfm

Tweets

@bonappetitfoodi » 20 Sep '12, 1am
Read these articles about organics and the Stanford study RT @boboroshi [link] [link] [link]
@m_m_campbell » 19 Sep '12, 11pm
Healthy debate. Is organic food really less healthy? Good case favouring organic: [link] #organic #agriculture #food #health
@boboroshi » 19 Sep '12, 2pm
@bonappetitfoodi [link] [link] [link]
@brettzwo » 17 Sep '12, 3am
“@OrganicConsumer: #Stanford study on #organic food flawed in many respects [link]” #fb
@bnowbh » 16 Sep '12, 10pm
RT '@OrganicConsumer #Stanford study on #organic food flawed in many respects [link]
@againstmonsanto » 15 Sep '12, 5pm
#Stanford study on #organic food flawed in many respects [link]
@RMSorg » 15 Sep '12, 12am
Health: Stanford Study Flawed - A recent press release from the Stanford School of Medicine read, "Little evidence o... [link]
@CleansGrn » 14 Sep '12, 6pm
#GreenLiving: Stanford Study Flawed - A recent press release from the Stanford School of Medicine read, "Little evid... [link]
@dtergis » 14 Sep '12, 3pm
Lots of benefits of organic food: fewer pesticides, higher level of beneficial nutrients & more @organicconsumer. [link]
@Salientwork » 14 Sep '12, 7am
RT @blaencamelbox: a key read in the organic v non organic debate @blaencamelfarm [link]
@blaencamelbox » 14 Sep '12, 6am
Important rebuke to the #Stanford Study for those of you interested in the organic vnon organic debate @blaencamelfarm [link]
@jameybennett » 14 Sep '12, 3am
Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods; OR, conventional foods found more dangerous than organic: [link]
@Veggytopia » 13 Sep '12, 10pm
RT @nicadler: "@OrganicConsumer: #Stanford study on #organic food is flawed. An expert explains why. [link]"
@BDoorn » 13 Sep '12, 7pm
Organic food: against-> https://t.co/DDlLg0Cc and against against -> [link] #sigh
@FrontlineCopy » 13 Sep '12, 6pm
Why so many holes? Stanford Study Flawed [link]
@Pepesplants » 13 Sep '12, 4pm
RT @againstmonsanto: #Stanford study on #organic food is flawed. An expert explains why. [link]
@OrganicConsumer » 13 Sep '12, 4pm
#Stanford study on #organic food is flawed. An expert explains why. [link]
@graciecavnar » 13 Sep '12, 2pm
Headlines matter. Who paid for Stanford study? “@michaelpollan: Another smart take-down of the Stanford organic study [link]”
@WanderlustFest » 13 Sep '12, 2pm
Did you read the Stanford Study claiming organic foods "no better" than conventional? Flaws of the study revealed here: [link]
@cookedinafrica » 13 Sep '12, 8am
RT @ethical_co_op: #Organic is the future, what do you think? ♡ ♡ ♡ "@OrganicConsumer Stanford Study Flawed [link]"
@ethical_co_op » 13 Sep '12, 8am
#Organic is the future, what do you think? ♡ ♡ ♡ "@OrganicConsumer Stanford Study Flawed [link]"
@one_citizen » 13 Sep '12, 2am
#eatlocal RT @michaelpollan: Another smart take-down of the Stanford organic study, by Jim Riddle, Univ of Minnesota [link]
@balanceandspice » 13 Sep '12, 12am
RT @DrFrankLipman: RT @michaelpollan: Smart take-down of the Stanford organic study, by Jim Riddle, Univ of Minnesota [link]
@iamtheseedman » 12 Sep '12, 11pm
Rt @EDarier: Stanford Study on #Organic Flawed [link] #biologique #ag
@EDarier » 12 Sep '12, 11pm
Stanford Study on #Organic Flawed [link] #biologique #ag
@ClickingSticks » 12 Sep '12, 11pm
Stanford Study Flawed [link] #UofMN
@5ourdiesel » 12 Sep '12, 10pm
RT @KevinCarson1: Stanford Study Flawed [link] Fuck you, Ron Bailey.
@mediaganda » 12 Sep '12, 10pm
sellwithmarcy: Stanford Study Flawed [link] [link]
@KevinCarson1 » 12 Sep '12, 9pm
Stanford Study Flawed [link] Fuck you, Ron Bailey.
@ABeeOrganic » 12 Sep '12, 9pm
A link to the rest of the article by Jim Riddle [link] [link]
@KosmicJelli » 12 Sep '12, 9pm
RT @Cocoxochitl: RT @michaelpollan: Another smart take-down of the Stanford organic study, by Jim Riddle, U of Minn [link]
@GoGoQuinoa » 12 Sep '12, 4pm
"Despite billions spent on research & subsidies, conventional foods found more dangerous than organic" [link] via @lisaborden
@tpdorsey » 12 Sep '12, 4pm
A point-by-point refutation of the flawed Stanford Organics study. [link]
@agrisysintl » 12 Sep '12, 1pm
Interesting counterpoint on recent Stanford study on organic vs conventional food. [link]
@r343l » 12 Sep '12, 1pm
Sigh. RT @michaelpollan: Another smart take-down of the Stanford organic study, by Jim Riddle, Univ of Minnesota [link]
@erynmmk » 12 Sep '12, 12pm
"@michaelpollan: Another smart take-down of the Stanford organic study, by Jim Riddle, Univ of Minnesota [link]" truthrevealed
@LisaBorden » 12 Sep '12, 11am
"Despite billions spent on research and subsidies, conventional foods found more dangerous than organic." [link]
@fanofrob » 12 Sep '12, 11am
RT @DrAyala: The Stanford organic study could have declared "conventional foods found more dangerous than organic" [link]
@DrAyala » 12 Sep '12, 11am
The Stanford organic study could have declared "conventional foods found more dangerous than organic" [link]
@ohHenry7 » 12 Sep '12, 10am
RT @buffalopundette: Stanford Organic Food Study Flawed - [link] #frackacademics #quackademics
@buffalopundette » 12 Sep '12, 10am
Stanford Organic Food Study Flawed - [link] #frackacademics #quackademics
@kaifit_ » 12 Sep '12, 10am
please be critical [link]
@MaristGarden » 12 Sep '12, 10am
Rebuttal to the Stanford study on organics you might have heard about. Worth a look. [link]
@outgeeked » 12 Sep '12, 8am
5am? Good time to tweet #organics benefits. [link]
@hermitical » 12 Sep '12, 7am
RT @michaelpollan: Smart take-down of Stanford organic study-Jim Riddle, U of Minn. [link] @SoilAssociation #OrganicSeptember
@TheSoloCook » 12 Sep '12, 6am
organic food under attack @michaelpollan shows challenge of Stanford organic study, by Jim Riddle, Univ of Minn. [link]”
@destineynoor » 12 Sep '12, 6am
shared a link [link]
@AndrewSprott » 12 Sep '12, 6am
“@michaelpollan: Another smart take-down of the Stanford organic study, by Jim Riddle, Univ of Minnesota [link]” #nosmarter
@katenieder » 12 Sep '12, 6am
Be wary of science coverage in media. smart take-down of Stanford organic study from U Minnesota via @michaelpollan [link]
@KyleStack » 12 Sep '12, 6am
A rebuke of the Stanford study that claimed organic food isn't safer than non-organic food: [link]