Published by
Stanford Medicine

In the News, Nutrition, Research, Stanford News

Stanford researcher chats live about the health benefits of organic foods

Stanford researcher chats live about the health benefits of organic foods

Updated 12:50 PM: Audio of the show is now available on Forum’s site.


8:00AM: People have been buzzing about the just-published Stanford study that compared the health benefits of organic foods with conventional foods. (As of last night, the New York Times article on the research was the most e-mailed story on their site.) Today, author Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, will discuss the study findings and their implications live on KQED’s Forum. The show airs locally at 10 a.m. Pacific time; audio will be made available online later in the day.

Previously: Stanford study on the health benefits of organic food: What people are saying and Research shows little evidence that organic foods are more nutritious than conventional ones

5 Responses to “ Stanford researcher chats live about the health benefits of organic foods ”

  1. Organic foods study draws response from Iowa shoppers – | Global Village News Says:

    […] reacts to new studyWDBJ7Don't give up on organic food, our experts urgeConsumerReports.orgStanford researcher chats live about the health benefits of organic foodsScope (blog)Environmental Health News (blog) -Los Angeles Times -Harvard Health […]

  2. David Grant Says:

    I was curious as to what multinational Corporation funded this study. My guess would be Monsanto’s GMO Division Round-up Ready Crops.I’m not sure of the rest of you, but when I was naive enough to actually eat Round-Up laden crops such as Corn, Soybean, and wheat my family and I were sick constantly, once I was informed that what I was eating was sprayed with Round-Up I started eating and growing organically. Myself and my family have not been sick one day in 4 years.

  3. Local Organic Farmer Reacts To New Study – Boise State Public Radio | Global Village News Says:

    […] organic, but don't buy the hypeDeseret News (blog)CBS Local -Scope (blog)all 968 news […]

  4. Michelle Brandt Says:

    David, the researchers received no external funding for their study.

  5. Liz Ellis Says:

    This study addressed produce, but not other foods, correct?

    This study discusses the nutritional value of organic vs. conventional produce. I do not believe organic standards address nutritional value. This was a moot point. They addresses nutritional value becuase the key authori is a Doctor of Internal Medicine, and they kept getting questions from their patients about whether organics were better for them or not.

    So the “sifted through papers” and essentially did a literature review for this study. There was no applied research involved. Their website states: “For their study, the researchers sifted through thousands of papers and identified 237 of the most relevant to analyze.”

    If the researchers are going to analyze nutritional value, the true question is the decline in overall nutritional value of our crops over the past fifty years (Michael Gregor, MD. for more information, April 25 2011 NutritionFacts video).

    The researchers do admit that organic food contain smaller amounts of pesticide residues than conventional produce. Thank you for telling us something we already know.

    The researchers tell us something they are clueless about – because they have no background in policy. They claim that because the amount of pesticide residues on conventional produce is below U.S. Government standards, it is essentially safe for consumption, and therefore we should feel okay to eat this stuff. Specifically, the statement on the Stanford MD website is: ”

    What’s more, as the researchers noted, the pesticide levels of all foods generally fell within the allowable safety limits. Two studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets did find lower levels of pesticide residues in the urine of children on organic diets, though the significance of these findings on child health is unclear. Additionally, organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the clinical significance of this is also unclear.”

    Okay – Here lies the problem – Most well-informed consumers (other than the researchers from Stanford) do not accept the “safety limits” developed by the U.S. Government for pesticide residues, hormones or most other chemicals. So, the significance of these results are not clear to the researchers, but they remain clear to the consumer. The potential presence of chemicals, hormones and antibiotics are one the main incentives for purchasing incentives, even if it costs a little bit more. Frankly, keep your medical opinion and “safety limits” to yourself.

    Consumer Reports states this research also downplays the importance of the benefits of organic produce. Stanford researchers are living in a glass bubble, not living in the real world.


Please read our comments policy before posting

Stanford Medicine Resources: