Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:49:25 AM
Stanford’s “Spin” on Organics Allegedly Tainted by Biotechnology Funding
Scientists Tied to Tobacco Industry Propaganda, and Funding from Monsanto, Turn Attention to Organic Food
September 12th, 2012
Cornucopia, Wis. – A recent study [ http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html ] by Stanford University researchers made international headlines when it claimed that organic foods are no more safe or nutritious than conventional foods. Organic researchers, farmers and advocacy groups immediately recognized the study as woefully flawed, and alleged underlying political motivations.
“People don’t buy organic food just because they think it contains slightly higher levels of nutrients, they buy organic for many other reasons, primarily to avoid toxic pesticide residues and toxins that have been genetically engineered into the food,” says Charlotte Vallaeys, Food and Farm Policy Director at The Cornucopia Institute, a non-profit organic farm policy organization.
Academics and organic policy experts, including at Cornucopia, immediately recognized that Stanford’s research in fact substantiates dramatic health and safety advantages in consuming organic food, including an 81% reduction in exposure to toxic and carcinogenic agrichemicals. Unfortunately, readers would never know it by the headlines, since the results of the study were spun by the Stanford researchers and public relations staff, and accepted without the necessary fact-checking by journalists in a rush to file stories over the Labor Day weekend.
Not surprisingly, the study’s glaring errors, both in understanding the important and complex differences between organic and conventional foods and in the researchers’ flawed choice of research methods, prompted organic advocates to look closely at financial ties between Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute [ http://fsi.stanford.edu/ ], which supports the researchers, and the chemical and agribusiness industry.
“There was just no way that truly independent scientists with the expertise required to adequately answer such an important question would ignore the vast and growing body of scientific literature pointing to serious health risks from eating foods produced with synthetic chemicals,” says Vallaeys.
“So 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 [ http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23434/FSI_2011ARFinal_Low.pdf ] to Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, where some of the scientists who published this study are affiliates and fellows.”
Stanford researchers had touted their independence by stating they had not received outside financial support for their study, but failed to delineate the close ties between their internal funding sources and industrialized agriculture and biotechnology interests.
Organic advocates also discovered that one of the study’s authors has a well-documented history of accepting research funding from the tobacco industry when a growing body of scientific literature in the 1970s pointed to serious health risks from smoking.
Dr. Ingram Olkin, a Professor Emeritus in statistics at Stanford and co-author of the organics study, accepted money [ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_99-cv-02496/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_99-cv-02496-4.pdf ] from the tobacco industry’s Council for Tobacco Research, which has been described as using science for “perpetrating fraud on the public.”
“Make no mistake, the Stanford organics study is a fraud,” says Mike Adams of Naturalnews.com and Anthony Gucciardi of Naturalsociety.org, who discovered the link between the organic study author and Big Tobacco. ”To say that conventional foods are safe is like saying that cigarettes are safe. Both can be propagandized with fraudulent science funded by corporate donations to universities, and we’re seeing the same scientist who helped Big Tobacco now helping Big Biotech in their attempt to defraud the public.”
Researchers with expertise in organics became suspicious about corporate funding and other industry ties after finding no other explanation for the Stanford study’s glaring omissions and flaws.
For example, multiple studies have drawn attention to the negative impacts of pesticide residues on children’s neurological health and development. Pesticides commonly used in conventional agriculture and often found as residues on conventional foods are known to be toxic not only to the neurological systems of insects but also of mammals, including humans, with developing fetuses, infants and children especially at risk.
“When the Stanford researchers left out any mention of pesticide residue impacts on human health, well-documented in a number of respected peer-reviewed studies, it immediately raised a red flag that Stanford’s analysis was likely designed to favor the agribusiness corporations in their desperate attempts to convince an increasingly educated and skeptical public that pesticides are safe,” says Vallaeys.
As an example, the Stanford researchers omitted a 2010 study [ http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/05/17/peds.2009-3058.abstract ] published in the journal Pediatrics by researchers at the University of Montreal and Harvard, which found that children with higher urinary levels of organophosphate metabolites, breakdown products of commonly used insecticides that are prohibited in organic agriculture, were more likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
The Stanford study also omitted any acknowledgement of potential cancer risks from exposure to agricultural chemicals on conventional foods. This seems especially reprehensible to the scientists at Cornucopia in light of the 2009 President’s Cancer Panel report [ http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualreports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf ], which states: “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”
The authors of the President’s Cancer Panel advise Americans to decrease exposure to pesticides by choosing food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers. Extensive research, including studies cited in Stanford’s study, indicates that organic food is demonstrably lower in agrichemical residues.
“Journalists failed to do due diligence to check the credibility of the Stanford study,” says Mark Kastel, Codirector at The Cornucopia Institute. “Wanting to be ahead of the news curve, reporters rushed out their stories on this study, over a holiday weekend, without seeking the expert advice of scientists who have studied the harmful effects of chemicals used in conventional food products and the documented advantages of an organic diet.”
Cornucopia points to several additional ways in which the Stanford study is seriously flawed and should never have been deemed scientifically rigorous enough to make national headlines. One glaring inadequacy of the Stanford study and subsequent media coverage is the failure to mention the known and unknown health risks of genetically engineered foods, which are prohibited in organics but dominate the conventional food supply.
“Many of the genetically modified crops ubiquitous in our food supply have been engineered to make toxins part of the plant’s DNA, so that every bite of genetically engineered food means a bite of the pesticide that has been inserted into the plant’s DNA, and cannot be washed off,” says Vallaeys. “The credibility of the Stanford study was doomed from the moment that the scientists decided not to even consider such central differences between conventional and organic.”
In 2011, scientists at the University of Sherbrooke in Canada published results of a study [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670 ] showing that toxins that have been genetically engineered into plants are not broken down in the body, as the biotech industry had claimed, but are in fact absorbed into the bloodstream of people who consume genetically engineered foods. Alarmingly, the researchers even found the genetically engineered toxins in the blood of fetuses of pregnant women enrolled in the study.
Published studies have pointed to other health risks from eating genetically engineered food, including damage to the liver, kidney, heart, adrenal glands and spleen.
The Stanford study also ignored an growing body of research, including some conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), that shows that exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, often used in conventional agriculture, can do severe harm at low doses.
“It is therefore disingenuous of the Stanford researchers to suggest that conventional foods are as safe as organic foods because pesticide residues on conventional foods generally, but not always, fall within EPA’s limits,” said the Cornucopia’s Vallaeys.
According to the NIEHS [ http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/endocrine_disruptors_508.pdf ], “an independent panel of experts convened by NIEHS and NTP found that there was “credible evidence” that some hormone-like chemicals can affect test animals’ bodily functions at very low levels — well below the “no effect” levels determined by traditional [EPA] testing.”
Moreover, as with pesticide’s effects on cancer rates, the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals are generally long-term, sometimes even multi-generational. “New research funded by NIEHS also found that endocrine disruptors may affect not just the offspring of mothers exposed during pregnancy, but future offspring as well,” according to the NIEHS.
“Given the complexity of the topic, no responsible scientist would allow their university’s communications department to characterize this type of research as proof that organic is no safer than conventional,” says Vallaeys. “The deep financial ties to agribusiness corporations whose profits depend on the public’s acceptance of agricultural chemicals and genetically engineered crops, and one of the author’s expertise in twisting science for the benefit of the tobacco industry, seem to explain the shortfalls of this study.”
Stanford University has deep ties to chemical agribusiness and agricultural biotechnology corporations. Agribusiness giant Cargill boasts it has a twenty-five year partnership with Stanford University, and faculty, including at the School of Medicine, have served on the Board of Directors of Monsanto while holding influential leadership positions at the university.
Stanford University is also the home of the Hoover Institution, a prominent ultraconservative, corporate-funded think tank that has attacked the credibility of organic farming and food production in the past.
George H. Poste, a member of Monsanto’s Board of Directors is listed on the biotechnology giant’s website as also being a Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution. The Cornucopia Institute monitors its activities, and those of other right-wing public affairs and lobby groups such as the Hudson Institute and the Heartland Institute, as part of what the farm policy interest group calls “the corporate attack on organics.”
Copyright 2012 The Cornucopia Institute
http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/09/stanfords-spin-on-organics-allegedly-tainted-by-biotechnology-funding/
--
Organic Food Debunker was Tobacco Institute Researcher in 1976
A recent Stanford University study claimed that there is no difference in the nutritional value of organic versus conventional foods. The media provided heavy coverage raising doubt about organics. The topic not covered is of major interest. The statistician for the article did research for the Tobacco Institute in 1976. Since statistical analysis was central to the study, the analyst is a subject in need of more coverage.
Michael Collins
09/06/2012 04:01:00
A widely publicized study claiming that there is no demonstrated difference in nutritional value between organically and conventionally grown foods just appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine [ http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685 ]. Broad mainstream media coverage produced headlines like Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html ]. The media failed to mention one point that may be of major interest.
The study relied on a statistical technique called meta-analysis [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis ]. Over 200 plus scientific journal articles were combined as the data set for the study. The article co-author with recognized expertise in meta-analysis, Ingram Olkin [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Olkin%20I%5bAuthor%5d&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22944875 ], applied for a grant from Council of Tobacco Research [ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_Tobacco_Research ] (CTR) in 1976.
CTR was part of the infamous Tobacco Institute [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Institute#Stealthy_techniques ], an industry group of cigarette manufacturers. Ingram was on the faculty of Stanford University at the time. The authors of the current study diminishing the value of organic foods are also from Stanford University, with Olkin [ http://fsi.stanford.edu/people/Ingram_Olkin ] listed as a professor emeritus.
Olkin applied to the CTR to conduct a project on the statistical methods used in the Framingham Heart Study [ http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/ ], the landmark project linking cigarette smoking with increased risk of heart disease. From publicly available tobacco industry documents, we find this from cigarette manufacturer lawyers [ http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_lor/00500243-0244.html ]:
"I met with Dr. Olkin and Dr. Marvin Kastenbaum [Tobacco Institute Statistics Director] on December 17, 1975, .at which time we discussed Dr. Olkin's interest in multivariate analysis statistical models. Dr. Olkin is well qualified and is very articulate. I learned, in visiting with Dr. Olkin, that he would like to examine the theoretical structure of the "multivariate logistic risk function."
The Tobacco Documents [ http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/kastenbaum_marvin_a.html ] describe Katzenbaum as knowledgeable of "the tobacco industry's participation in the public disinformation regarding the health hazards of tobacco use …"
According to internal tobacco company documents [ http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_bw/521028845-8850.html ] from cigarette manufacturers, Olkin received a grant from CRT and submitted a final paper in 1979. The paper could not be found online.
Olkin's work for the Tobacco Institute was originally discussed by Robert N. Proctor Golden in his January 2012 Google eBook, Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition [ http://books.google.com/books?id=YP2dHzxkx5cC&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=framingham+heart+study+olkin&source=bl&ots=4rrk9HVVx5&sig=RLyGjUC4lOxkhJrVOAGXrP0euIE&hl=en#v=onepage&q=framingham%20heart%20study%20olkin&f=false ( http://tinyurl.com/cdj2unm )], University of California Press. Columbia University professor Andrew Gelman [ http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/ethics4.pdf ] cited Olkin's work in his September article in the journal Statistics and Ethics, which discusses the ethical challenges of statisticians when working for big business.
Objective statistical analysis was central to this study
Professor Olkin's specialty, meta-analysis, was the research technique employed to generate the findings for the study designed to debunk the value of organic foods. Contrary to the conclusion that there's little evidence of a difference in nutritional value, the article notes that "Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets." The researchers say that they "did not identify clinically meaningful differences" in measures among adults. That's a statistical inference. The study found "phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant." Again, the statistical analysis negated a finding in favor of organic produce based on statistical analysis.
The researchers concluded::
"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."
The mainstream media picked up and ran with this relatively obscure research. The New York Times headline reads, Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html?_r=1 ]. Fox News had this to say: Study says organic food may not be worth the money [ http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/19457056/study-says-organic-food-may-not-be-worth-the-money ]. Bucking the tide, the Los Angeles Times editorialized against the study's significance in a major editorial, the case for organic food [ http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-organics-20120905,0,5514318.story ].
Studies like the one out of Stanford are less about the quality of the research than they are about the headlines when mainstream media gets involved. In this case, the findings prop up conventional foods at the expense of organics by the mere mention of Stanford researchers claiming there's no nutritional difference.
This minor article was picked up by media all over the country. No doubt, it raised questions for some who are currently buying organic foods and those who were considering making the switch from conventional to organic.
This value of this type of narrow research was discussed by the Tobacco Institutes legal counsel William W. Shinn [ http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_lor/00500243-0244.html ] when he recommended Professor Olkin's 1976 proposed study on the impact of cigarette smoking on heart disease:
"We believe that a modest effort now may stimulate a broader interest in such questions especially among theoretical statisticians at Stanford and elsewhere."
Ironic, isn't it?
Copyright 2012, fleshAndstone.net
http://www.fleshandstone.net/politics/decline-and-fall-collins/organic_food_debunker_was_tobacco_institute_researcher_in_1976.html [no comments yet]
--
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=16807573 and preceding (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64625707 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78059638 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66296418 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72223435 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72278570 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74197741 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78050286 (and any future following)
Scientists Tied to Tobacco Industry Propaganda, and Funding from Monsanto, Turn Attention to Organic Food
September 12th, 2012
Cornucopia, Wis. – A recent study [ http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html ] by Stanford University researchers made international headlines when it claimed that organic foods are no more safe or nutritious than conventional foods. Organic researchers, farmers and advocacy groups immediately recognized the study as woefully flawed, and alleged underlying political motivations.
“People don’t buy organic food just because they think it contains slightly higher levels of nutrients, they buy organic for many other reasons, primarily to avoid toxic pesticide residues and toxins that have been genetically engineered into the food,” says Charlotte Vallaeys, Food and Farm Policy Director at The Cornucopia Institute, a non-profit organic farm policy organization.
Academics and organic policy experts, including at Cornucopia, immediately recognized that Stanford’s research in fact substantiates dramatic health and safety advantages in consuming organic food, including an 81% reduction in exposure to toxic and carcinogenic agrichemicals. Unfortunately, readers would never know it by the headlines, since the results of the study were spun by the Stanford researchers and public relations staff, and accepted without the necessary fact-checking by journalists in a rush to file stories over the Labor Day weekend.
Not surprisingly, the study’s glaring errors, both in understanding the important and complex differences between organic and conventional foods and in the researchers’ flawed choice of research methods, prompted organic advocates to look closely at financial ties between Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute [ http://fsi.stanford.edu/ ], which supports the researchers, and the chemical and agribusiness industry.
“There was just no way that truly independent scientists with the expertise required to adequately answer such an important question would ignore the vast and growing body of scientific literature pointing to serious health risks from eating foods produced with synthetic chemicals,” says Vallaeys.
“So 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 [ http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23434/FSI_2011ARFinal_Low.pdf ] to Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, where some of the scientists who published this study are affiliates and fellows.”
Stanford researchers had touted their independence by stating they had not received outside financial support for their study, but failed to delineate the close ties between their internal funding sources and industrialized agriculture and biotechnology interests.
Organic advocates also discovered that one of the study’s authors has a well-documented history of accepting research funding from the tobacco industry when a growing body of scientific literature in the 1970s pointed to serious health risks from smoking.
Dr. Ingram Olkin, a Professor Emeritus in statistics at Stanford and co-author of the organics study, accepted money [ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_99-cv-02496/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_99-cv-02496-4.pdf ] from the tobacco industry’s Council for Tobacco Research, which has been described as using science for “perpetrating fraud on the public.”
“Make no mistake, the Stanford organics study is a fraud,” says Mike Adams of Naturalnews.com and Anthony Gucciardi of Naturalsociety.org, who discovered the link between the organic study author and Big Tobacco. ”To say that conventional foods are safe is like saying that cigarettes are safe. Both can be propagandized with fraudulent science funded by corporate donations to universities, and we’re seeing the same scientist who helped Big Tobacco now helping Big Biotech in their attempt to defraud the public.”
Researchers with expertise in organics became suspicious about corporate funding and other industry ties after finding no other explanation for the Stanford study’s glaring omissions and flaws.
For example, multiple studies have drawn attention to the negative impacts of pesticide residues on children’s neurological health and development. Pesticides commonly used in conventional agriculture and often found as residues on conventional foods are known to be toxic not only to the neurological systems of insects but also of mammals, including humans, with developing fetuses, infants and children especially at risk.
“When the Stanford researchers left out any mention of pesticide residue impacts on human health, well-documented in a number of respected peer-reviewed studies, it immediately raised a red flag that Stanford’s analysis was likely designed to favor the agribusiness corporations in their desperate attempts to convince an increasingly educated and skeptical public that pesticides are safe,” says Vallaeys.
As an example, the Stanford researchers omitted a 2010 study [ http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/05/17/peds.2009-3058.abstract ] published in the journal Pediatrics by researchers at the University of Montreal and Harvard, which found that children with higher urinary levels of organophosphate metabolites, breakdown products of commonly used insecticides that are prohibited in organic agriculture, were more likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
The Stanford study also omitted any acknowledgement of potential cancer risks from exposure to agricultural chemicals on conventional foods. This seems especially reprehensible to the scientists at Cornucopia in light of the 2009 President’s Cancer Panel report [ http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualreports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf ], which states: “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”
The authors of the President’s Cancer Panel advise Americans to decrease exposure to pesticides by choosing food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers. Extensive research, including studies cited in Stanford’s study, indicates that organic food is demonstrably lower in agrichemical residues.
“Journalists failed to do due diligence to check the credibility of the Stanford study,” says Mark Kastel, Codirector at The Cornucopia Institute. “Wanting to be ahead of the news curve, reporters rushed out their stories on this study, over a holiday weekend, without seeking the expert advice of scientists who have studied the harmful effects of chemicals used in conventional food products and the documented advantages of an organic diet.”
Cornucopia points to several additional ways in which the Stanford study is seriously flawed and should never have been deemed scientifically rigorous enough to make national headlines. One glaring inadequacy of the Stanford study and subsequent media coverage is the failure to mention the known and unknown health risks of genetically engineered foods, which are prohibited in organics but dominate the conventional food supply.
“Many of the genetically modified crops ubiquitous in our food supply have been engineered to make toxins part of the plant’s DNA, so that every bite of genetically engineered food means a bite of the pesticide that has been inserted into the plant’s DNA, and cannot be washed off,” says Vallaeys. “The credibility of the Stanford study was doomed from the moment that the scientists decided not to even consider such central differences between conventional and organic.”
In 2011, scientists at the University of Sherbrooke in Canada published results of a study [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670 ] showing that toxins that have been genetically engineered into plants are not broken down in the body, as the biotech industry had claimed, but are in fact absorbed into the bloodstream of people who consume genetically engineered foods. Alarmingly, the researchers even found the genetically engineered toxins in the blood of fetuses of pregnant women enrolled in the study.
Published studies have pointed to other health risks from eating genetically engineered food, including damage to the liver, kidney, heart, adrenal glands and spleen.
The Stanford study also ignored an growing body of research, including some conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), that shows that exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, often used in conventional agriculture, can do severe harm at low doses.
“It is therefore disingenuous of the Stanford researchers to suggest that conventional foods are as safe as organic foods because pesticide residues on conventional foods generally, but not always, fall within EPA’s limits,” said the Cornucopia’s Vallaeys.
According to the NIEHS [ http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/endocrine_disruptors_508.pdf ], “an independent panel of experts convened by NIEHS and NTP found that there was “credible evidence” that some hormone-like chemicals can affect test animals’ bodily functions at very low levels — well below the “no effect” levels determined by traditional [EPA] testing.”
Moreover, as with pesticide’s effects on cancer rates, the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals are generally long-term, sometimes even multi-generational. “New research funded by NIEHS also found that endocrine disruptors may affect not just the offspring of mothers exposed during pregnancy, but future offspring as well,” according to the NIEHS.
“Given the complexity of the topic, no responsible scientist would allow their university’s communications department to characterize this type of research as proof that organic is no safer than conventional,” says Vallaeys. “The deep financial ties to agribusiness corporations whose profits depend on the public’s acceptance of agricultural chemicals and genetically engineered crops, and one of the author’s expertise in twisting science for the benefit of the tobacco industry, seem to explain the shortfalls of this study.”
Stanford University has deep ties to chemical agribusiness and agricultural biotechnology corporations. Agribusiness giant Cargill boasts it has a twenty-five year partnership with Stanford University, and faculty, including at the School of Medicine, have served on the Board of Directors of Monsanto while holding influential leadership positions at the university.
Stanford University is also the home of the Hoover Institution, a prominent ultraconservative, corporate-funded think tank that has attacked the credibility of organic farming and food production in the past.
George H. Poste, a member of Monsanto’s Board of Directors is listed on the biotechnology giant’s website as also being a Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution. The Cornucopia Institute monitors its activities, and those of other right-wing public affairs and lobby groups such as the Hudson Institute and the Heartland Institute, as part of what the farm policy interest group calls “the corporate attack on organics.”
Copyright 2012 The Cornucopia Institute
http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/09/stanfords-spin-on-organics-allegedly-tainted-by-biotechnology-funding/
--
Organic Food Debunker was Tobacco Institute Researcher in 1976
A recent Stanford University study claimed that there is no difference in the nutritional value of organic versus conventional foods. The media provided heavy coverage raising doubt about organics. The topic not covered is of major interest. The statistician for the article did research for the Tobacco Institute in 1976. Since statistical analysis was central to the study, the analyst is a subject in need of more coverage.
Michael Collins
09/06/2012 04:01:00
A widely publicized study claiming that there is no demonstrated difference in nutritional value between organically and conventionally grown foods just appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine [ http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685 ]. Broad mainstream media coverage produced headlines like Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html ]. The media failed to mention one point that may be of major interest.
The study relied on a statistical technique called meta-analysis [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis ]. Over 200 plus scientific journal articles were combined as the data set for the study. The article co-author with recognized expertise in meta-analysis, Ingram Olkin [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Olkin%20I%5bAuthor%5d&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22944875 ], applied for a grant from Council of Tobacco Research [ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_Tobacco_Research ] (CTR) in 1976.
CTR was part of the infamous Tobacco Institute [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Institute#Stealthy_techniques ], an industry group of cigarette manufacturers. Ingram was on the faculty of Stanford University at the time. The authors of the current study diminishing the value of organic foods are also from Stanford University, with Olkin [ http://fsi.stanford.edu/people/Ingram_Olkin ] listed as a professor emeritus.
Olkin applied to the CTR to conduct a project on the statistical methods used in the Framingham Heart Study [ http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/ ], the landmark project linking cigarette smoking with increased risk of heart disease. From publicly available tobacco industry documents, we find this from cigarette manufacturer lawyers [ http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_lor/00500243-0244.html ]:
"I met with Dr. Olkin and Dr. Marvin Kastenbaum [Tobacco Institute Statistics Director] on December 17, 1975, .at which time we discussed Dr. Olkin's interest in multivariate analysis statistical models. Dr. Olkin is well qualified and is very articulate. I learned, in visiting with Dr. Olkin, that he would like to examine the theoretical structure of the "multivariate logistic risk function."
The Tobacco Documents [ http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/kastenbaum_marvin_a.html ] describe Katzenbaum as knowledgeable of "the tobacco industry's participation in the public disinformation regarding the health hazards of tobacco use …"
According to internal tobacco company documents [ http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_bw/521028845-8850.html ] from cigarette manufacturers, Olkin received a grant from CRT and submitted a final paper in 1979. The paper could not be found online.
Olkin's work for the Tobacco Institute was originally discussed by Robert N. Proctor Golden in his January 2012 Google eBook, Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition [ http://books.google.com/books?id=YP2dHzxkx5cC&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=framingham+heart+study+olkin&source=bl&ots=4rrk9HVVx5&sig=RLyGjUC4lOxkhJrVOAGXrP0euIE&hl=en#v=onepage&q=framingham%20heart%20study%20olkin&f=false ( http://tinyurl.com/cdj2unm )], University of California Press. Columbia University professor Andrew Gelman [ http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/ethics4.pdf ] cited Olkin's work in his September article in the journal Statistics and Ethics, which discusses the ethical challenges of statisticians when working for big business.
Objective statistical analysis was central to this study
Professor Olkin's specialty, meta-analysis, was the research technique employed to generate the findings for the study designed to debunk the value of organic foods. Contrary to the conclusion that there's little evidence of a difference in nutritional value, the article notes that "Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets." The researchers say that they "did not identify clinically meaningful differences" in measures among adults. That's a statistical inference. The study found "phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant." Again, the statistical analysis negated a finding in favor of organic produce based on statistical analysis.
The researchers concluded::
"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."
The mainstream media picked up and ran with this relatively obscure research. The New York Times headline reads, Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html?_r=1 ]. Fox News had this to say: Study says organic food may not be worth the money [ http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/19457056/study-says-organic-food-may-not-be-worth-the-money ]. Bucking the tide, the Los Angeles Times editorialized against the study's significance in a major editorial, the case for organic food [ http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-organics-20120905,0,5514318.story ].
Studies like the one out of Stanford are less about the quality of the research than they are about the headlines when mainstream media gets involved. In this case, the findings prop up conventional foods at the expense of organics by the mere mention of Stanford researchers claiming there's no nutritional difference.
This minor article was picked up by media all over the country. No doubt, it raised questions for some who are currently buying organic foods and those who were considering making the switch from conventional to organic.
This value of this type of narrow research was discussed by the Tobacco Institutes legal counsel William W. Shinn [ http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_lor/00500243-0244.html ] when he recommended Professor Olkin's 1976 proposed study on the impact of cigarette smoking on heart disease:
"We believe that a modest effort now may stimulate a broader interest in such questions especially among theoretical statisticians at Stanford and elsewhere."
Ironic, isn't it?
Copyright 2012, fleshAndstone.net
http://www.fleshandstone.net/politics/decline-and-fall-collins/organic_food_debunker_was_tobacco_institute_researcher_in_1976.html [no comments yet]
--
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=16807573 and preceding (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64625707 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78059638 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66296418 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72223435 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72278570 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74197741 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78050286 (and any future following)
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
