Organic market: does this change anything

[Kevin K]

There's a lot more to the Mark Bittman article than complaining. For starters, it shows that the Stanford "study" along with others they've published has a very strong pro-agribusiness slant and doesn't even pretend to look at organic agriculture in a balanced way.

Kashi as you say is owned by Kellogg's, and that company along with most of the other major players in what has now become a very corporate agribusiness scene in the U.S. have been fighting hard to prevent labeling of foods containing GMOs and in general have been working hard to make the world safe for the likes of Monsanto - and miserable for agriculture that is small, local and (whether certified or not) organic.

Getting back to the original question of whether studies like these "change" anything for those who care about who grows their food and where it comes from (at the Tuesday market, specifically), I personally hope it inspires folks to get to know local producers, to know that local trumps organic (ESPECIALLY "corporate organic"), and to tune in to the food and culinary traditions of the specific area of México in which we live. That'd mean a whole lot more gringos buying (and learning how to cook) nopales, chayote, frijoles, healing herbs, local grass-fed meat, etc. and far less support for the Kashis and Morningstar Farms of the world.

[HelperGuy]

I agree with everything else you mention, but in my opinion, the article shows a huge bias, and is an attempt to discredit the original. Nothing wrong with that, but it's there.