The problem with these headlines is that they are flatly false. The study these news outlets are quoting actually confirms that organic foods are far healthier for you than conventional foods.
So how is the mainstream media lying about this? By fudging the facts, of course.
For starters, the "study" isn't even a study. It was just a review of other studies. No new laboratory analysis was done whatsoever!
The "review" was conducted at Stanford University and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. You can read the abstract here.
As the study itself concludes:
-- Exposure to chemical pesticides was significantly lower in organic foods (roughly 30% less than conventional foods).
-- Exposure to "superbugs" in meat (antibiotic-resistant bacteria) was also significantly lower in organic foods (roughly a 33% risk difference).
-- The study conclusion says, right out, that "Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."
How the media lied
Somehow, the mainstream media took this study and then lied to their readers, claiming organic food is "no different" than conventional food. That is a flat-out lie, of course. Because it fails to mention all the following:
-- GMOs are not allowed in organic foods. So GMO exposure is many orders of magnitude higher in conventional foods, where GMOs are commonplace.
-- Artificial chemical sweeteners are not allowed in organic foods. But conventional foods are often sweetened with toxic chemicals such as aspartame or saccharin.
-- The study completely failed to look at the use of genetically-modified bovine growth hormones (rBGH) in conventional milk versus organic milk.
-- The environmental impact of conventional food production is devastating to the planet. Chemical pesticides aren't just found in the crops; they also run off into the streams, rivers and oceans. No mainstream media article that covered this story even bothered to mention this hugely important issue -- it's one of the primary reasons to buy organic!
-- The funding source of the study is listed as "None." Does anybody really believe that? All these scientists supposedly volunteered their time and don't get paid to engage in scientific endeavors? It's absurd. The money for the study had to come from somewhere, and the fact that the Annals of Internal Medicine is hiding the source by listing "none" is just further evidence of scientific wrongdoing.
A total psyop to confuse the public and push GMOs
Ultimately, this study comes down to being a total psyop pushed by the mainstream media for the purpose of confusing the public and ultimately promoting GMOs.
The media's coverage of this is pure disinfo along the lines of other health disinfo campaigns such as:
1 | 2