So a Stanford study shows no advantages for Organic food. It's all an expensive way to make liberals feel they are doing something for the environment. I guess local organic food is not much better.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/05/marni-soupcoff-stanford-study-shows-organic-food-no-safer-or-healthier-than-conventional-food/>When a new study by doctors at Stanford University found that organic foods are not any healthier than conventional foods, Canada’s organic growers must have been at a loss.
What could they possibly say to the dreary news that paying big bucks for organic products actually provides no positive physical or nutritional benefits? Would the growers be humbled or embarrassed? Would they graciously admit the evidence that their products are no better for consumers than the less pricey non-organic varieties?
Well, what do you think? No, the organic growers have chosen to react to the study by ignoring the elephant in the room — the finding that there’s no reason to believe organics are safer or more nutritious than conventional foods. Instead, they have rather bizarrely insisted that the study is a vindication of their products.
Here is the topsy turvy conclusion of Beth McMahon, who is executive director of Canadian Organic Growers: “I look at [the study] and I think they found only good things about organic food.” Ummm, okay. Not sure how organics’ failure to provide any health or food safety advantage is GOOD, but let’s follow her reasoning.