by Susanne Posel
September 10, 2012

from OccupyCorporatism Website





Globalist-funded researchers at Stanford University have created a propaganda study to assert that the nutritional values of organic food are not more than conventionally grown and GMO food.


The study claims that the price hike of organic food combined with the researcher’s allegation that organic food supporters over-blown health benefits result in,

“no advantages of organic meat and produce”.

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.


  • Dr. Ingram Olkin, co-author of the negative organic study has worked as a purveyor of propaganda in favor of tobacco corporations. Olkin also has chaired at the Stanford Department of Statistics; he created the multivariate Logistic Risk Function statistical algorithms which legitimizes lying within statistical information with use of complex mathematical equations.


    In addition, Stanford has multiple ties to GMO giants such as Monsanto of whom they receive funding from that totals an estimated half billion dollars.


  • Susan J. Colby, chief executive officer for the Clayman Institute for Gender Research, previously served as co-president for Monsanto’s Sustainable Development sector.

Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who attended Stanford University during 1965-1966, worked for Monsanto as a client and has Monsanto lobbyists (below video) working on his campaign for President:








Residue from pesticides measured from organic produce compared against conventionally grown food, using the same data collected by Stanford researchers, showed that they omitted findings that proved the organic food is scientifically proven to be healthier because of the lack of exposure to pesticides.


According to the study, the consumption of pesticides is less of a risk as imagined.


Because the Environmental Protection Agency lays down guidelines, the exposure of humans to pesticide consumption may be less when ingesting organic food, but its benefits are negligible.


In the data gathering for the Stanford study, the researchers purposefully excluded previous studies and research that did not “meet their criteria for scientific rigor”.


The USDA guidelines on food safety are based on the UN’s Codex Alimentarious, a global scheme to control the world’s food production and dissemination. On December of 2009, the accord of global implementation of Codex was established.


The oversight of Codex is given to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) by the UN.


In 1194, Codex declared nutrients to be defined as toxins and dangerous for human consumption.


Codex demands that all dairy cows across the globe be treated with Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone (rBGH.2). Furthermore, all animals grown for human consumption must be treated with sub-clinical antibiotics and must be injected with endogenous growth hormones.


According to epidemiological projections based on data provided by the WHO and FAO estimated that these restrictions on nutrition would cause a minimum of 3 billion human deaths. These people who be literally starved to death because of the lack of nutritional value of the food they are forced to consume.


This scheme of depopulation through basic denial of nutrients and minerals necessary for human health could begin the process of global human population reduction.


Studies like the anti-organic research conducted by Stanford play right into the schemes of the global Elite for 90% global depopulation.