Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

facismrising

(16 posts)
13. You like subjective research, the rest of us don't!
Sun May 26, 2013, 03:41 AM
May 2013
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/13-5

We were not one bit surprised to find that the agribusiness giant Cargill, the world’s largest agricultural business enterprise, and foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which have deep ties to agricultural chemical and biotechnology corporations like Monsanto, have donated millions to Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, where some of the scientists who published this study are affiliates and fellows," said Charlotte Vallaeys, Food and Farm Policy Director at the Cornucopia Institute, a non-profit organic farm policy organization.

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/11/16/authors-stand-by-results-of-controversial-organic-food-study/
From stanford website
FOLLOW THE MONEY PEOPLE!
Another area that came under criticism was the source of funding for the research. Critics accused the authors of bias because of Stanford’s financial ties to agricultural companies like Cargill, Inc. and Monsanto Company.

Cargill and Monsanto are both agricultural giants in the food production industry. Both companies have reportedly donated to Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute (FSI). In particular, Cargill has worked with Stanford for 25 years in the Food, Security and the Environment (FSE) program. It has donated $3 million to the University, with another $2 million pledged. The Center for Health Policy, with which Bravata and Smith-Spangler are affiliated, is part of FSI.

However, the Stanford team asserts that neither the FSI nor the money that Cargill donated to FSE was directly associated with any of the research conducted for the study.

“We did not have anything to do with this study,” said FSE Director Rosamond Naylor. “Cargill does not support any of our research projects. They support just the base funding…for running the operation.”

Nonetheless, critics like health advocate and journalist Anthony Gucciardi created a Change.org petition titled “Retract the Flawed ‘Organic Study’ Linked to Big Tobacco and Pro-GMO Corps” calling for the retraction of the study and a review of the findings by a third party. This petition currently has over 6,700 signatures.

Further criticism of the meta-analysis method pointed out the link between Olkin and Big Tobacco companies. The petition alleges that Olkin worked with Big Tobacco companies in the past that used meta-analysis to skew data on the health effects of cigarettes. Due to this precedent, the Change.org petition described the meta-analysis method as a “a way to lie with statistics.”
it is also about ingesting KT2000 May 2013 #1
It's also about building and maintaining the soil Warpy May 2013 #2
Still the yields are about 25% lower than conventional farming Quixote1818 May 2013 #3
The stanford study you quote is biased considering STANFORD RECIEVES MONSANTO FUNDING obama4socialism May 2013 #6
I have yet to see a peer reviewed study Quixote1818 May 2013 #9
Why repeat what has been proven to be wrong? If biased studies make it through the peer review facismrising May 2013 #12
While most public attention sulphurdunn May 2013 #32
I garden organically, and I have more and tastier produce than my neighbors who use miracle grow Viva_La_Revolution May 2013 #20
There are over 120 peer reviewed studies here... Veilex May 2013 #22
That's true but quick review says they don't all suggest Progressive dog May 2013 #26
Science is rarely black and white. Phenols have been extolled for their virtues, but some would argue Veilex May 2013 #33
science is usually tending toward black and white, that's the point Progressive dog May 2013 #37
This message was self-deleted by its author Veilex May 2013 #38
Your right, in that science does try to define everything it can (The black and white analogy)... Veilex May 2013 #39
Fact is, since farmers have moved away from organic methods Progressive dog May 2013 #40
"I agree that there is very little scientific proof of nutrients or yield in either direction"... Veilex May 2013 #41
So where's the beef, it's not in your 120 studies Progressive dog May 2013 #42
Um, not quite Warpy May 2013 #23
She is lying! No estrogenic pesticides plus organic food is HIGHER IN IMPORTANT NUTRIENTS facismrising May 2013 #4
That study is bogus. Please post something from a science journal next time Quixote1818 May 2013 #7
Stanford MONSANTO funded study gets in Journal, OTHERS THAT SHOW ORGANIC MORE NUTRIENT DENSE facismrising May 2013 #8
I can't believe we even pay attention to the so called "mainstream" reporting anymore. They obama4socialism May 2013 #10
You mean pro-organic organizations tied the study to Monsanto Quixote1818 May 2013 #11
You like subjective research, the rest of us don't! facismrising May 2013 #13
This message was self-deleted by its author Veilex May 2013 #35
your assertions about cattle feed have caused me to conclude you have no credibility for this topic Kali May 2013 #24
organic is non-GMO. Cobalt Violet May 2013 #5
That isn't a winning argument. Crow73 May 2013 #30
This is classic Straw Man* crapola Berlum May 2013 #14
Yup you nailed it! The argument is flawed; Organic is BETTER! Civilization2 May 2013 #16
And yet they leave out important aspects of the Cargill funded study. fasttense May 2013 #15
Her 4 mythical myths destroyed KurtNYC May 2013 #17
yeah - that "pestilized" made me go Kali May 2013 #25
This is obviously not a clear cut black and white issue Snake Plissken May 2013 #18
organic is better fpasko May 2013 #19
Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin May 2013 #21
That Sounds's Interesting. Any Proof of Organic-only at Monsanto HQ. dballance May 2013 #27
Suspicious timing, right after Monsanto March felix_numinous May 2013 #28
Thanks, but Crow73 May 2013 #29
That made a lot of sense Progressive dog May 2013 #31
The presentation is glib and slick..... DeSwiss May 2013 #34
very interesting discussion - thanks to all CHOCOLATMIMOSA May 2013 #36
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»4 Myths about Organic Foo...»Reply #13