Stanford study – Blue Kitchen

Feedback and fallout continue to follow the recently released Stanford study claiming that organic food is no more nutritious than conventional food. And we pick the winner of a copy of Minette’s Feast: The Delicious Story of Julia Child and Her Cat.

I love a good verbal dust-up, a spirited exchange of ideas. I’m not so sure a couple of Stanford University scientists would agree right now. They unleashed quite a torrent with their recent statement that organic foods were no more nutritious than non-organic foods. More specifically, Dr. Dena Bravata, an MD and the senior author of the study published in the September 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, said, “There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health.” And that’s where the fun begins. Continue reading “Small Bites: The organic vs. non-organic story continues and the winner of our first giveaway” →

A study just released by Stanford University scientists has found that organic foods—produce, meat and dairy—are no more nutritious than non-organic or conventional foods. The study also reports that they are no less likely to be contaminated. They’re probably right. They examined more than 40 years’ worth of research on the topic; the study used no outside funding to avoid any “perception of bias;” and, well, they’re scientists.

The problem with their research, as I see it, is that they asked the wrong question. No one has really seriously claimed that organic foods are more nutritious. And earlier studies on this very subject have already stated what the Stanford researchers were “surprised” to discover. To me, they missed the point. Their central question was kind of like asking if LED light bulbs are any quieter than conventional ones, or if fuel-efficient vehicles are any shinier than gas guzzlers. Continue reading “Organic vs. non-organic: A flawed Stanford study produces dangerous sound bites” →