The recent Stanford University study that asserts organic foods are no more nutritious than “conventional foods” has achieved exactly what the report’s “undisclosed” funders wanted: a seemingly legitimate and “scientific” source questioning the virtues of organic foods followed by extensive media buzz.

The study conducted by Stanford University researchers concludes the following:  “The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

This conclusion is completely nonsensical. First off, the objective of the Stanford paper is not legitimate as it strives to disprove something that has never been claimed. Organic foods are promoted by environmentalists and health-conscious individuals because of the natural methods used to cultivate the produce, not because of the nutritional value. Therefore, stating that there is not “strong enough evidence” proving that “organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods” is not only a statement lacking all authority (no new studies were conducted to prove this assertion only the evaluation of existing studies that were deficient to begin with), but is an irrelevant remark that provides no productive value to the discussion of organic foods.

The organic food industry is booming. As organic options are becoming more and more affordable, big industrial agro-companies (such as one of Stanford’s most recent corporate funders, Cargill), are getting very nervous about the future of their economic profits. No political or scientific entity has seriously challenged the virtues of organic foods because doing so seems inherently ridiculous. It’s a no-brainer (even to Tea Party members) that eating foods soaked in chemicals is not exactly good for you. Just as Exxon paid the Heartland Institute to publish studies disproving climate change, “undisclosed” funders of this recent Stanford University study have seemingly done the same for organic foods. In terms of unethical brilliance, however, the Heartland Institute’s “studies” significantly outshine Stanford’s in execution.

The second half of Stanford’s faulty study does not even attempt to contest the main issue at hand. The study clearly and explicitly states that the “consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

So, what exactly is the point of this paper? It’s quite obvious that big-agro corporations have an invested interest in the results of this study. University’s have accepted payments to publish politicaly-motivated reports in the past, so why wouldn’t Stanford do the same? Stanford tried to make this report as convincing as possible but, failed terribly with its goal. Perhaps the University should invest in some lessons from Heartland Institute on how to craft a report of such an immoral nature.

Trending Articles: