The Stanford Report on Organic Food and Undisclosed Ties to Big Ag / GMO Advocates

Stanford’s report on organic food, which interpreted data in a very questionable manner and did not adequately take into account the harm that pesticide exposure causes to young children and fetuses, created the perception that people don’t need to buy organic – something that couldn’t be more untrue.

As I suspected from the beginning, this whole study was a big effort to undermine the credibility of organic with the all-important California ballot initiative to label GMOs, Proposition 37, right around the corner.

And despite the fact that the authors claimed that no outside funding was received to complete this study, in an attempt to create an aura of impartiality, there do appear to be serious conflicts of interest which had not been fully disclosed.

As The Cornucopia Institute reported last night, there are deep financial ties between Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, which supports the researchers, and the chemical and agribusiness industry. Two key donors to the Freeman Spogli Institute include:

Cargill, the world’s largest agricultural corporation, major GMO-advocate, and an entity that has donated money to defeat Proposition 37.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a Monsanto shareholder and an entity that has a serious GMO-agenda in Africa.

On top of this, Mike Adams from reported that one of the co-authors of the Stanford report, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as a propagandist for major corporations, including Big Tobacco.


The real issue we face here is that the mainstream media could now care less about these connections and is onto the next headline grabbing story.

Unfortunately, the damage is done. And among uneducated consumers, the notion exists that purchasing organic is not necessary.

Of course, we know that this is not the case, but reality does not always trump perception.

This does not mean that we give up, however.

It means that we have to dig our heels in even harder to make sure Proposition 37 in California gets passed. If California approves GMO-labeling, it will encourage other states to do the same and this is our best way to reclaim a healthy, pesticide-free, non-GMO food supply in the U.S.

How can you help?

1)  Donate money to the CA Right to Know campaign.

2) Get your friends in California to understand the importance of GMO-labeling and have them choose “Yes” in November when Proposition 37 gets voted on.

To learn more about Proposition 37, click HERE.

To learn which conventional, organic and natural food companies have donated money to defeat Proposition 37, click HERE. (These are also the companies that I am boycotting.)

Thank you so much for supporting organic food.



  • Alisa Rose says:

    Excellent article.
    Please circulate it far and wide!
    New study about genetically engineered substances (“food” it is not).
    With g.e..salmon already given the go-ahead, apparently twelve more g.e. crops- including APPLES – have been or are on their way to being approved.
    Now the issue is genetically engineered substances versus organic…Basically,’conventional’ is beginning to defacto equal g.e.

  • Mei Prang says:

    Like you mentioned, conventionally grown food contains harmful pesticides and hormones, and people should consider the effects that those will have on their body. This blog post has some good information on another reason why the study wasn’t reliable:
    Instead of completely believing everything from the study because it was on the news, people need to look into the details and consider other factors. I agree that Prop 37 needs to be passed; it is important for everyone to be aware of what they are consuming for the sake of their health.
    Mei Prang

    • Max Goldberg says:

      Hi Mei,

      Thanks for your comment, and the media jumped on the highlights and crushed organic. The power of the media….

      Live well,

  • Ken Lonyai says:

    Good reporting Max, unfortunately though, what you said “Unfortunately, the damage is done. And among uneducated consumers, the notion exists that purchasing organic is not necessary.” is very true. So I consider the study a big win for big ag. Of course the fight isn’t over, but the mountain just got much taller.

    • Max Goldberg says:

      Hi Ken,

      Certainly a win for Big Ag. It helps when the media is in your pocket and there is a natural bias against organic.

      A very, very big vote for us.

      Live well,

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *