Letter: Skeptical of organic food study
"Science has now confirmed common sense; far more important than eating organic is eating healthy," we argue. Credit: Newsday, 2009 / Thomas A. Ferrara
I just read the findings of the Stanford University study on organic food versus nonorganic foods and wondered how it defines healthy ["Not organic, but still good for you," Editorial, Sept. 5]. I also question the timing of these findings when California, Stanford's home state, has a bill on the ballot that would require all genetically modified crops and feed to be labeled as they are in 50 other countries.
The important point about organic food is what is not in it. Many who support the labeling campaign do so because of the building body of research surrounding the negative effects of nonorganic farming.
Biotech companies produce seeds that are embedded with an herbicide-resistant gene that allows crops to be sprayed with huge quantities of weed killer and survive. This spraying depletes the soil of nutrients.
Don Huber, a plant pathologist and soil microbiologist at Purdue University, has written to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture about the unexpected consequences of genetically modified foods. He described concerns about high rates of infertility among livestock that eat genetically modified feed. Does that sound healthy to you?
Judy Tripp, Westbury
