#Organic Food Is It Worth the Cost Info @skyyogastudio .com
Sep. 12, 2012
LOS ANGELES—On Sep. 4, two Stanford researchers, Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD and Margaret Brandeau, Ph.D., reported organic food is no more nutritious than conventionally-grown produce. They missed the point.
A close reading of the study reveals the researchers assume that pesticide residues falling within EPA tolerances do not affect the nutritional value of food.
The point the researchers missed is this: consumers pay a premium for organic food precisely because they don’t trust government safety standards and want to avoid pesticide residues as much as they can.
Is there any validity to consumers’ concerns?
Author Duane Law, L.Ac., a naturopath and one of the United States’ earliest acupuncturists, has prepared a detailed fact sheet with linked references, PubMed cites and more for journalists who are interested in digging deeper into this story. It details how chemical industry lobbyists are appointed (even now) to administrative posts where they can suppress the findings of qualified scientists. It summarizes a growing body of peer-reviewed evidence supporting the idea that levels of endocrine-disrupting pesticides now accepted as “safe” can in fact have negative effects on the developing brains of fetuses and young children.
One point the study makes appears to be valid: organic food may often contain no more vitamins and minerals than conventionally-grown food.
But by limiting their definition of the term “nutritious” to the nutrient content of the food and ignoring more salient concerns regarding the adequacy of pesticide regulation, specifically the adverse health impacts of “safe” levels of neurotoxin pesticides, the researchers have engaged in a dangerous and deceptive semantic game, ignoring the very reason consumers pay a premium for organic food in the first place.
Download the factsheet at http://www.naturalstresscare.org/Its-the-pesticides-dork.html.
