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
Video & Multimedia
In reply to the discussion: 4 Myths about Organic Foods / Healthy Food Secrets [View all]facismrising
(16 posts)13. You like subjective research, the rest of us don't!
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/13-5
We were not one bit surprised to find that the agribusiness giant Cargill, the worlds 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 Stanfords 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 Stanfords 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 Stanfords 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.
We were not one bit surprised to find that the agribusiness giant Cargill, the worlds 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 Stanfords 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 Stanfords 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 Stanfords 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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
42 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The stanford study you quote is biased considering STANFORD RECIEVES MONSANTO FUNDING
obama4socialism
May 2013
#6
Why repeat what has been proven to be wrong? If biased studies make it through the peer review
facismrising
May 2013
#12
I garden organically, and I have more and tastier produce than my neighbors who use miracle grow
Viva_La_Revolution
May 2013
#20
Science is rarely black and white. Phenols have been extolled for their virtues, but some would argue
Veilex
May 2013
#33
Your right, in that science does try to define everything it can (The black and white analogy)...
Veilex
May 2013
#39
"I agree that there is very little scientific proof of nutrients or yield in either direction"...
Veilex
May 2013
#41
She is lying! No estrogenic pesticides plus organic food is HIGHER IN IMPORTANT NUTRIENTS
facismrising
May 2013
#4
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