In article ,
wrote:

begin 644 nature11069.pdf
[Image]

end

The report was a mega study. It studied studies, and they get to pick
who they will study. Long story short, you can pull a rhinoceros out of
a top hat with a mega study.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/2012998389284146.html
Myths about industrial agriculture
Organic farming is the "only way to produce food" without harming the
planet and people's health.

by Vandana Shiva

Reports trying to create doubts about organic agriculture are suddenly
flooding the media. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, people are
fed up of the corporate assault of toxics and GMOs. Secondly, people are
turning to organic agriculture and organic food as a way to end the
toxic war against the earth and our bodies.

At a time when industry has set its eyes on the super profits to be
harvested from seed monopolies through patented seeds and seeds
engineered with toxic genes and genes for making crops resistant to
herbicides, people are seeking food freedom through organic,
non-industrial food.

Today's hunger is permanent and global. It is hunger by design. This
does not mean that those who design the contemporary food systems
intend to create hunger. It does mean that creation of hunger is built
into the corporate design of industrial production and globalised
distribution of food.

A series of media reports have covered another study by a team led by
Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford's Centre for Health Policy,
and Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in the school's
Division of General Medical Disciplines and a physician-investigator at
VA Palo Alto Health Care System, who did the most comprehensive
meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and
conventional foods.

They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious
or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though
consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.

This study can hardly be called the "most comprehensive meta -
analysis"; the researchers sifted through thousands of papers and
identified 237 of the most relevant to analyse. This already exposes the
bias. The biggest meta-analysis on food and agriculture has been done by
the United Nations as the International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).
http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments...id/105853/Defa
ult.aspx/docs/Global_SDM_060608_English.htm

Four hundred scientists from across the world worked for four years to
analyse all publications on different approaches to agriculture, and
concluded that chemical industrial agriculture is no longer an option,
only ecological farming is.

Yet the Stanford team presents itself as the most comprehensive study,
and claims there are no health benefits from organic agriculture, even
though there were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people
consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of
the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.

Two days does not make a scientific study. No impact can be measured in
a two-day study. This is junk science parading as science.

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg