It is so sad that a media release of a pretty bad review of lit has created such a buzz.
Below you will find three excellent responses to the Stanford study.
The authors of all three articles below are highly respected leaders in the sustainable food community. In addition, consumer reports is recognized as a trusted source of information. The third study, "Five ways the Stanford Study Underestimates Organic Food," helps you clearly understand the way in which the media has made the Stanford study misleading.
The media has interpreted the Stanford study findings as showing no clear health benefit of organic. However, the study does show a very significant difference in exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic resistant bacteria. There are also problems with the way the meta-analysis was conducted (a review of many studies) which Chuck Benbrook highlights in the second article.
Both Dr. Benbrook and Tom Philpott both emphasize how pregnant women and young children are especially sensitive/vulnerable to the impacts of pesticide residues, especially hormone-disrupting chemicals that affect people at extremely low doses.
Don't give up on organic food, Consumer Reports experts urgeToday on Civil Eats from Chuck Benbrook:And the always excellent Tom Philpott weighs in:
