Chang, Kenneth. "Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on
Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce ." nytimes.com. The New York Times, 3 Sept. 2012. Web.
26 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html>.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html
“Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on
Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce” by Kenneth Chang, details an
interesting scientific study that attempts to release the truth about organic
foods. Stanford scientists have
analyzed four decades of research and come to the conclusion that on average,
organic foods are neither more nutritious, nor any less likely to be infected
by dangerous bacteria than conventional foods; however there were a number of
key differences that were unearthed between the two types of foods as a result
of the study. Conventional foods
often had higher levels of pesticide residue, organic chicken and pork were
found less likely to be contaminated by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, organic
milk was found to contain more omega-3 fatty acids, which are good for the
heart, and organic produce even contained higher levels of phenols, which are
believed to help prevent cancer.
These findings indicate that while organic foods may not necessarily be
more nutritious, they are often safer and more beneficial to one’s health, a
big reason why this study is not expected to have an effect on the willingness
of the consumer to pay more for organic food. There are a number of critics of this study because it involved so many variables and grouped all foods into one group, and thus it is very hard to determine how to interpret the results; however, if there is one thing to take away from this article, it is that despite the fact that there may not be any discernible difference between nutritional values of organic and conventional foods, on the margin, it appears that organic food is slightly better for one's health.
In the United States in recent years, the organic food market has grown in value to over $12 billion. The results of this scientific study validate such growth. While, consumers, such as myself, may not be getting more nutritional value from eating organic foods, there are a number of health benefits to be gained from eating such foods. The higher price of organic foods may dissuade some, but the health benefits detailed in this article may help convince people that their health is well worth the extra money. In this article a study was detailed in which pregnant women who had been exposed to high levels of pesticides known as organic phosphates were identified and the development of their children was tracked for a number of years. It was found that those children had a lower I.Q. on average than their classmates, and thus it is comforting to know that when eating organic foods, the chance of such pesticide consumption drops significantly. This study may convince people who have the money that is worth the extra dollars to obtain the health benefits that may come with eating organic foods instead of conventional foods.
I thought that this article was very informative, but sometimes hard to follow, and a little bit disorganized. I felt that at times the author was shifting from topic to topic too quickly and without enough depth. The author also did a very mediocre job of connecting constituent parts to the message of the article as a whole. This resulted in the article being a little bit confusing until I had gone through it a couple of times. I did like that the author seemed to present no bias to either the conventional foods side or the organic foods side and left the interpretation of the results up the to reader. He allowed the reader to decide whether or not the potential benefits of organic foods outweigh the extra costs and the fact that they don't contain any more nutritional value than the conventional foods.
Elizabeth McGough 9/27/12
ReplyDelete“Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce” Comment
The review of Kenneth Chang’s “Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce” was adept at describing the pros versus the cons of organic food as it synthesized a large amount of information that was otherwise dispersed throughout the article. I feel that the critiques of the article and how it was written were fair, as well as well-defended. Another aspect of the review that I found to be well-presented was the study about the effects of pesticide exposure in pregnant women on the I.Q. average of their children. This example was straightforward and helped both the author and the reviewer make their points about the benefits of organic foods by providing some substantial evidence. I do, however, agree with the point that further studies will probably need to be done as there as so many variables to take into account.
One important detail I would have mentioned would be the fact that while conventional foods do contain more pesticides, the pesticides that they do contain are within the limit set by the Food and Drug Administration and are, according to the FDA, safe to consume for humans. The article also mentioned that the studies done encompassed a wide variety of foods, with everything from fruits, to vegetables, to meats, so I feel that this is an important detail to mention as it means that the results of the experiments consisted of data combined from across a wide variety of foods. So, some organic foods may be healthier than conventional foods while others might not be. This is an important area of study that will need to be looked into more in depth in the future, as I believe that the researchers should not try and make broad conclusions with such a variety of foods.
I was somewhat surprised by the tremendous growth in the organic foods industry. While I knew that organic foods have become more in vogue over the past few years, I did not realize that a $12.4 billion industry. This just goes to show how important studies with organic foods and conventional foods are, as a lot of people are spending a lot of money on them and want to be reassured that they are making good decisions about what to splurge on in the super market.
This review of the New York Times article, "Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce", written by Kenneth Chang, is extremely well done and has many areas to which it can be praised. Firstly, it is extremely factual and presents the results of the scientific study conducted at Stanford. Also, the review leaves the readers with a choice of whether they believe that organic food’s benefits outweigh their high prices. Lastly, the article is satisfactory because it presents the findings of the study in a very simple way to understand, unlike the way the author of the article presented them, which was said to be “…shifting from topic to topic too quickly and without enough depth.”
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are two areas in which the review could be critiqued. One suggestion on how the review could go even further is to have discussed the different ways that the study could have interpreted the results to explain why so many people criticized the study. Another suggestion that could be made for the review is to have it discuss the opinion of the reviewer, so that the reader can then go deeper into the article by discovering someone’s point of view to illustrate the reasons why the average person should or should not be consuming organic products for different reasons besides the cost and the nutrition, such as the food’s accessibility.
Finally, I believe I took away a lot from this article. One fact that really caught my attention was the fact that the organic food market has grown to over $12 billion in the US alone. This gives me more hope that the country is really making an attempt to eat healthier and more nutritiously, rather than eating fast food or pesticide ridden crops.
Samantha Past
ReplyDeleteThe review of the article headlined,” Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce,” by Kenneth Chang, reviewed by Cyrus, includes a very good evaluation of the article. The review is extremely organized, succinct, and easy to follow. Cyrus does a great job of summarizing the article, in a way that simplifies the article, making it appear to be less complicated and easy to understand. The review, while simplifying, kept many important facts which aided in presenting the argument/ subject of the article. For example, Cyrus chose to include facts regarding how conventional foods usually have higher levels of pesticide residue, as opposed to organic chicken and pork which are found to be less likely contaminated by antibiotic bacteria. Another aspect of this review I found to be particularly effective, was the example included pertaining to the experiment preformed using a pregnant women who was exposed to high levels of pesticides, and how the development of her children were therefore effected by these organic phosphates. Although in the review, Cyrus discusses how he may have been a bit confused by the article, he did a really nice job of reviewing the article in an easy, understandable way, including interesting, important facts and studies, while keeping his own point of view present.
Although the reviewer did a great job of simplifying the article, perhaps if a little more information/ facts were included there would have been a larger argument portrayed by the author. Just reading the review does not give the reader a clear understanding of what the author of the article’s point of view is, and how Kenneth Chang feels about organic or conventional foods, or just in general the tone the author of the article has toward the studies conducted. Likewise, if the reviewer included a little more information regarding perhaps a larger list of why consumers like or dislike/ chose to buy or not to buy organic foods, it would give the reader a larger majority of information, allowing the reader to make a more informed decision or develop an opinion of what they think of organic foods.
One idea that specifically drew my attention upon reading the article, and as was mentioned in the review, was the experiment conducted regarding a pregnant woman and her children. Three studies were published last year by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan. The studies recognized a pregnant woman who was exposed to higher amounts of pesticides, organophosphates, and followed her children. What was found was in elementary school; her children had on average I.Q.’s several points lower than the other children in their classes. This study astonishes me and I believe if people were to learn more about studies like this one, their minds would be changed regarding organic foods, because if the conventional foods contain pesticides that effect their children’s I.Q.’s they may think twice before disregarding paying the extra money for organic foods.
I thought Cyrus did a really good job reviewing the article “Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce” by Kenneth Chang. In his review, he included a lot of information about both sides of the argument over organic produce very concisely: though organic produce may not be more nutritious, it does provide health benefits over conventional foods. Additionally, he does a good job explaining the possible effects of eating food with too many pesticides and he contemplates the benefits provided by organic foods. The idea that the pregnant woman who ate fewer pesticides gave birth to children with higher IQs was very interesting. Cyrus included good information from the article, and also was able to draw from that information and apply it to the benefits organic produce can have on our lives. I thought that his analysis of the information was good. He didn’t clutter the review with too many explanations or details either.
ReplyDeleteAlthough these were several positive components to his review, there were a few things that I thought were missing from his article. He did not explain too clearly why conventional foods were considered just as nutritious if organic foods do have benefits. I am interested to find out more, since I often eat only organic foods, and truly wonder if it is worth the extra money. I also think that he could improve the summary by adding information about how they did the study, as he states that “it involved so many variables and grouped all foods into one group, and thus it is very hard to determine how to interpret the results.” I would like to know more about why they did the experiment and presented their results this way.
I learned a lot from reading Cyrus’s article, and found it very interesting. I am surprised to hear that both organic produce and conventional foods are within the same nutritional margins on the scale of what is “safe,” as many farmers take extra care to keep foods pesticide-free and organic, and people pay more money for these foods, for little benefit.
I liked Cyrus' summary, because it was concise, easy to follow, and informative. He lists many facts, such as the fact that organic food does not contain as many antibiotic resistant bacteria and that organic milk contains more 3-omega fatty acids that are beneficial to the heart. He is also able to clearly state that while organic food may not be any more nutritional, it does certainly have positive health effect. I also liked Cyrus's criticism of the article. He is able to point out that it lacks an organization and does not go into much detail.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would have liked to see more of was what he meant when he states this research has come under criticism because of the apparent lack of a control group. I am a bit confused about how this research was conducted; perhaps he can explain the procedure in a simplified way next time. Also, I would have liked his opinion on whether or not this research changed his opinions on organic products; since the nutritional contents of organic food do not appear to be any better than those of conventional food, I am guessing that some people may not want to spend the extra money anymore.
I found the bit about pregnant women who ate conventional food and were thus exposed to higher amount of pesticide having children with lower IQs in average highly fascinating. However, I am not sure if I am convinced, especially because there is a lack of information on the control variables. For instance, did the mothers and fathers who participated in this research have a roughly similar range of IQ? There is an argument that IQ is nature rather than nurture.
- Erica
The article review on, Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce, presented by Cyrus was very interesting and relevant to many people today. He describes many facts, such as the fact that organic food does not contain as many antibiotic resistant bacteria. Also that, organic milk contains more 3-omega fatty acids that are beneficial to the heart. He was also able to state that while organic foods may be a bit more beneficial than conventional foods, organic foods do have certain health benefits. I though Cyrus did a great job at summarizing the article and highlighting some important differences among the two types of foods.
ReplyDeleteI would have liked to see some more information on how the experiments were conducted. Also, I would have liked to see more differences among organic and conventional foods. As for the experiment, I would have liked to know how the experiments were conducted and what were the control factors and what type of people were experimenting with this. I think the experiment would have been an important factor in the conclusion of organic vs.conventional foods. Also, I would have liked to know the effects of consuming too much conventional food on the body, as he had stated the benefits of the consumption of organic foods to the body.
I though it was very interesting to read that pregnant woman who consume more conventional foods, are exposed to higher amounts of pesticide that caused their children to have lower IQ's than some of their classmates. I found this to be really interesting because eating organic foods can be beneficial to the child and allow the child to have a higher IQ. I would have liked to know more about the experiment performed on the pregnant woman to see what were some of the control factors that lead to these results.
-Nastaran Soroori