Hi, I'm Amanda! My family farms corn and soybeans in Southwest Michigan. I'm also a practicing attorney.
A study at Stanford University found in 2012 that there was no significant difference nutritionally between conventional and organic food. Another study, which was published in February of 2016 came to the same conclusion, though specifically looked at animal products.
The good news for consumers is that you don’t have to feel bad about choosing conventional choices for your family. They’re just as healthy and nutritious!
The Silver Lining in This Year’s Dirty Dozen List t.co/qD3kFSYmtE
Right-to-Repair Challenges Continue t.co/sOTL8t7fPx
The Silver Lining in This Year's Dirty Dozen List - The Farmer's Daughter USA
thefarmersdaughterusa.com
EWG's 2023 Dirty Dozen list included a little silver lining for its critics. Is this finally an admission the list is bull?
Kroger learns hard lesson about aligning with ag extremists | AGDAILY
www.agdaily.com
Mercy for Animals goes for the kill shot against Kroger after the grocer loosened its approach to selling only cage-free eggs.
Can you link to the study? I am not a member of the Annals of Internal Medicine. These things seem to come to the conclusion that supports the preconceived ideas of whoever pays for the study. Testing protocols can be designed to show the desired outcome. I did find something interesting in the summary – 30% less pesticide residue in organic and 33% less bacteria that are resistant to 3 or more antibiotics.
I find it interesting that you only promote the first 1/2 of the study’s conclusion, yet have no mention of the second part. “Conclusion: 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.”
I think you’re really trying to hard to find something wrong with this. It is absolutely unbelievable that with ZERO evidence you have suggested there is something wrong with the study because it does not fit your preconceived notions. Suggesting that it has been bought and paid for shows a lack of understanding of the scientific process. As does suggesting that the testing protocols are skewed to reach a certain result. I suggest you look up more about the peer review process.
This meme was about the first part of the conclusion, not the second part of the conclusion. That’s why it wasn’t addressed. Graphics can only handle so much text. That being said, the second half is something I have addressed elsewhere and is also a red herring. Pesticide residue is NOT something people need to be concerned about at all. Assuming that this study actually tested for organic pesticides (which is not something that is always done, hence the reason organic will have less pesticide residue), that still doesn’t mean there is a problem. I suggest checking out the pesticide calculator to get some perspective on this: http://safefruitsandveggies.com/pesticide-calculator