According to a Stanford University study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in August of 2012, There isn't much difference between organic and conventional food. They "did not find strong evidence" that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives. They found little consistent difference in the vitamin content or any other significant nutrients in organic foods.
The authors agreed that organic produce had 30% less pesticides but pointed out that organic foods are not necessarily 100% free of pesticides either and that pesticide levels were within acceptable safety levels.
The way all this is presented is correct. However, it is misleading and scandalous that a prominent University such as Stanford or medical journal such as the Annals of Internal Medicine would publish such misleading information. Personally, I'm outraged that the source of funding was not disclosed. This likely means that it was paid for from funds coming from a non-disclosed resource. Stanford University does not disclose close to $500 million of the funds they receive. Why? They don't want you to know where they come from. Because they have ties to Big Agra, the possibility of severe conflicts of interest arise that are frightening.
In addition, one of the authors of the study is Ingram Olkin, PhD, who was once head of the department of statistics at Stanford University, but also represented the tobacco industry in such a way that it seemed that tobacco might even be good for you!
Busted!! How can one have any confidence in situations like this? Shame on Stanford, the Annals of Internal Medicine, and even the NY Times for publishing such unreliable information.
