Stanford Anti-Organic Study Plays into UN Codex Alimentarius Outline for Global Depopulation
Dr. Dena Bravata, lead author of the study and affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy, explained : “When we began this project, we thought that there would likely be some findings that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food. I think we were definitely surprised.”
The summation of the study: organic food is a marketing scheme to coerce people into paying higher prices for the same quality food. The study says: “The evidence does not suggest marked health benefits from consuming organic versus conventional foods although organic produce may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and organic chicken and pork may reduce exposure to antibiotic resistant-bacteria.”
Claiming that the supposition of the study was to inform the public on the nutritional value of conventional versus organic food, Bravata asserts that there was no outside financing that would have created a bias.
Bravata believes that organic food bears no more nutritional value nor have more beneficial vitamins over conventional and GMO produce and meat.
In a two year study , scientists from Washington State University found that “organically grown strawberries were far more nutritious than their chemically grown counterparts.”
John Reganhold, lead researcher and professor, states that with all the data they have collected, and comparing chemical methods of growing food as juxtaposed with organic techniques, the actual way in which the food is grown effects the nutritional value of the food. Use of pesticides and chemicals create dangerous food laced with carcinogenic properties.
Read the full article at: occupycorporatism.com