Baserritars that produce organic biological and ecological (and try to get as close as possible to this, avoiding pesticides and chemical fertilizers) would not have been too surprised. Stanford researchers have not broken the record output that engineer José Miguel Mulet left in the Consumer magazine of the Eroski chain last January. “It’s a fraud to say that organic food is better for health and the environment.” On the Internet you can also read in Basque.

But the one from the University of Stanford got another echo, published in the scientific journal Annals of Internal Medicine, in which all major media outlets have broadened their wave. The reader of Argia has probably heard the news that, if it is recognized that there are fewer pesticides, food produced in an ecological or biological way does not have a nutritious value significantly greater than that of food grown in an industrial way.

The Stanford people have been answered from many points of view, and there have also been reactions in our own country. Some of the answers published in EE.UU. They are particularly interested in understanding the details of the research work, as well as some of the techniques used in its communication, the interests behind it and what the substance of the matter is.

Researchers at Stanford have investigated 298 previous studies on the subject in order to reach two main conclusions. One: “The existing scientific literature shows no unequivocal evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” And two. “The consumption of organic foods can reduce the assimilation of pesticide residues and bacteria that are incurable for antibiotics.”

Chuck Benbrooke has looked at the subject of The devil in the details – literally, “The devil is in the details” or also “It’s not explained in detail”. Benbrook has been a senior position of the U.S. administration on agricultural issues, making him a prominent man within the system.

However, in the same literature as Stanford, Benbrooke finds three of the main benefits of food and organic farming. Firstly, the lack of pesticide use reduces the damage caused by chemicals in the development of foetuses and children. Secondly, the balance between omega-6 and omega-3 fats in meats and organic dairy products is markedly better. And finally, it reduces the appearance of bacteria that are untreatable with antibiotics, one of the great harms of industrial agriculture.

On the other hand, asks Benbrooke like many others, what does it mean that one food is significantly more noutritious (significantly more nutritious) than another? If many studies have recognised organic people as having an advantage of between 10% and 30% of food... Isn't that significantly more noutritious? Not 60%-80% vitamin C, antioxidants and phenolic acids?

5% to 33%

“A food – says Benbrooke – doesn’t have to be 50% richer in the most important ingredients to bring great health benefits humana.Tener 10% more of some specific ingredients would bring important benefits to people’s health.”

There is one study mentioned by the Stanford that has not been taken into account, and that has been published in 2011 by a team from Newcasttle University (Great Britain), led by Kristen Brandt, Ecosystem Management and Nutritional Quality of Plants Foods: The Case of Organic Fruits and Vegetables In it, Brandt’s team has shown that the largest quantities of organic food are related to the agricultural production system of organic food; it is because the plants cultivated in the biological have stronger defense mechanisms.

Benbrooke, for his part, has denounced the way in which the statistics have been presented at Stanford. For example, if 5% (4 out of 81 samples) have been found in organics and 33% (1,354 out of 4,069) in industrialists, can you say that the risk in them is 28% lower? On the tissues 28 points less, yes, but if we had started to compare it would not be more correct to say “81% less”? The other is a way to confuse people.

The Commission's proposal for a Council directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogenic substances in foodstuffs is an important step in the right direction. “With data from the U.S. Pesticide Data Program, I have calculated that the risk of finding pesticides in conventional brands is 17.5 times higher than in organic brands. This means that in organic foods the health risks from pesticides are 94% lower.”

There's a lot of information in the world about the harm that pesticides do to people's health. Benbrooke has reminded some of the few that have recently been published in the United States to strengthen their arguments. “Today, insecticides with organophosphates have been shown to increase the risks in the neurological development of the unborn fetus (...), as well as the risks of astma, attention to disturbance of loss of hyperactivity (ADHD) and autism. There are more studies conducted in school children in the same sense.

Another problem highlighted by Beenbrooke is that of bacteria that are intractable to antibiotics. The risk of these foods in industrial foods is three types compared to biologics. The population is recommended to take few and rigorous antibiotics continuously, but less is mentioned that the transformed bacteria that have been able to counteract them have been generated in large part in giant industrial farms.

However, other criticisms of the work of Stanford researchers have called into question, in addition to their work, the independence of the area. The Common Dreams space, which publishes works by the U.S. intelligentist Left, has recalled that agribusiness and food multinationals -- Cargill, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Monsanto -- have made large donations to the Stanford-Freeman Spogli Institute, which has funded research. The association Cornucopia, promoter of organic agriculture, has denounced that among the researchers is former professor Ingram Olkin, who had previously worked in favor of tobacco corporations.

Jason Marc of the Earth Island Journal, for his part, has looked at farmers and children drowning among pesticides. Although the benefits for him were small, he would continue to eat organic, as he does a great favor for the health of the baserritars.