Why the Stanford Organic Food Meta-Analysis is 'Scientific' Nonsense

An investigation into why the results of the recent Stanford University study comparing the nutritional value of organic and conventionally grown food are irrelevant.

“You’re the dumbest smart person I ever met.”

~ I Robot by Issac Asimov

In 2000, Craig Venter of Celera Genomics, the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Public Genome Project announced that they had mapped the human genome. Their initial findings showed that human beings had approximately 32 million genes. What was surprising, however, was that it appeared that only about 2 percent of those genes actually did anything they could identify as useful. The remaining 98 percent appeared to have no known biological function so everything except the 2 percent was referred to as "junk DNA." This became accepted “scientific fact” for a decade.

On Sept. 5 of this year, Tim Hubbard of Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Roderic Guigo of the Centre for Genomic Regulation and Ewan Birney of the European Bioinformatics Institute announced that they had discovered that contrary to being “junk” these remaining genes were absolutely essential to regulating infinitely elegant levels of body, organ, cellular and molecular health and functioning, including the balances of critical proteins.

The implications were mind-boggling because they affected every imaginable level of dysfunction, every known disease, and everything from immune system health to neuropsychiatric disorders. And the discoveries are just beginning. So I guess the old saying that “God don’t make no junk” turned out to be true.

It’s a commonly accepted scientific fact that nature is ruthlessly efficient in its management of resources. Yet it’s a testament to the hubris of human beings that in the face of something that overwhelmingly challenged how we think about the world, scientists first chose to believe that nature suddenly abandoned that principle and had uniquely created humans as the most inefficient life form on earth.

This story sums up everything that’s wrong with the Stanford Organic Food Study. The media, of course, has had a field day with the “scoop” that the only difference between mass produced, agri-business food and our locally grown organic varieties is price and pesticide residues. And organic food supporters followed suit, arguing the other side of how the media had framed the “controversy.” Even stalwart supporters like Mother Jones Magazine and Michael Polan got mired down in this “logic” trap.

But did anyone actually read the study?

Garbage In / Garbage Out

The Stanford School of Medicine Report noted that in choosing what studies to include in their “meta analysis” (a study of the results of other studies) that “…the researchers sifted through thousands of papers and identified 237 of the most relevant to analyze. Those included 17 studies (six of which were randomized clinical trials) of populations consuming organic and conventional diets, and 223 studies that compared either the nutrient levels or the bacterial, fungal or pesticide contamination of various products (fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, milk, poultry, and eggs) grown organically and conventionally.”

Then there’s this footnote: "There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years."

Two days?! Two years?! Does any credible scientist or doctor actually believe that a study of human health and nutrition that is no longer than two years has any statistical relevance or value whatsoever? Does anyone actually believe that the major diseases that are killing us, like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and metabolic syndrome, are the result of something that happened to us within the last two years… or two days?

But it gets worse. Arguments about the detrimental effects of pesticides are really a 1970's environmental issue and the negative impacts are well documented. But what’s more absurd about the Stanford Study is that with regard to meats, dairy and poultry it doesn’t even look at the impacts of antibiotics, artificial growth hormones and endocrine disrupters in conventionally grown / raised food, that all recent scientific inquiry has shown has effects on our bodies and the planet that are many times more serious than pesticide residues.

But even with that aside, the conclusions of the Stanford Study are fundamentally troubling.

Defining Nutritional Value

A reasonable question to ask when evaluating statistical “facts” is what were the assumptions of the researchers doing the studies? What definition did most of the studies use to determine what was or wasn’t of nutritional value and worthwhile to human health? The answer is that the vast majority of studies that exist only look at macronutrients (fats, carbohydrates, proteins, etc.) and major micronutrients (generic vitamins and minerals) that are recognized as having nutritional value by the Food and Drug Administration as published by the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 

Based on those metrics no one would expect any significant differences between organic and conventional foods.

However, the FDA’s nutritional guidelines are based on methods and thinking that’s over 50 years old and their definition of what does or doesn’t have nutritional value is so archaic that it’s pretty much irrelevant. Heck, they’re still trying to get people to even eat vegetables and whole grains, much less trying to understand what’s actually in them that’s good for you. In other words, the FDA is focused on about “2 percent” of what’s in our food. The other “98 percent,” to use the human genome analogy, much of which is impacted by how it’s grown, where it’s grown, seed quality, the soil conditions, the natural sunlight, the quality of water, etc., are not counted as having any nutritional value by the FDA.

Furthermore, as Stanford itself points out, there have not been any long term clinical studies of even the stuff the FDA does recognize as having value. And even if there were, to understand just how long it takes before anything is “proven” by long term clinical studies (and how meaningless that is to our everyday lives), it might surprise a lot of people to know that arthroscopic surgery, all spinal surgeries (including fusion, laminectomy, and discectomy), most chemotherapy and advanced radiation cancer treatments, chiropractic treatments, acupuncture, massage, and almost all types of physical therapy also all lack any long term clinical evidence that they have any health benefits whatsoever.

I’m not a scientist but isn’t it reasonable to ask just what that other 98 percent of things in food are and what their potential benefits might be rather than jump to neat and tidy conclusions based on no real evidence and a pile of statistically questionable studies?

The Five Senses

Either you believe that your five senses; sight, smell, touch, taste and hearing, have evolved for some purpose and health benefit or you don’t. You either believe that there are almost infinite levels of perception and intelligence and biochemical feedback loops in your body and brain that go into choosing what you eat (or anything else you do for that matter) based on how it looks, smells, feels, tastes and maybe even sounds (some people tap on melons to hear if they’re ripe), or you don’t.

If you don’t believe your senses have a purpose other than their entertainment value then please just stop reading now because I can’t convince you.

But anyone who has their five senses working and has compared organically grown food to the mass produced food you find in stores like Safeway knows that the difference is striking. Or if that doesn’t convince you, just grow some tomatoes in your backyard and you’ll find the store bought ones taste like sawdust in comparison. This is not exactly new news. People have been growing and raising and catching their own food forever because they “sense” that fresh, naturally grown, wild caught food is better in every way.

The reasons for differences are many but they include things like sun and vine ripening is better than temperature manipulation and chemical preservatives and “ripening” treatments while in transit; growing in biologically rich soils is better than artificially fertilized and organically depleted soils; quick-to-market when ripe color and texture is superior to food dyes, applied “waxes,” artificial color additives and “finish” enhancers used by large corporate growers, and many more.

So there’s little argument that how food is grown has an impact on its color, smell, taste and consistency. But why is it that we are evolved to sense the differences? Perhaps it’s because they reflect the presence of the 98 percent of nutrients the FDA and almost all “clinical” studies to date ignore?

The 98 Percent

Consider this: Some of the things the FDA does not recognize as having any nutritional value include most of the items that fill the shelves of your local health food “vitamin” shop. It includes hundreds of thousands (millions?) of anti-oxidants, varieties of dietary fiber, trace elements, amino acids, probiotics, micro-nutrients, co-enzymes and bio-flavonoids that naturally occur in food. That includes substances like Q10, phosphadityl choline and vitamin D3 (versus just “vitamin D”), just a few of the things that have recently been identified as possibly the most important substances we can take to improve a wide variety of health conditions. And it also includes “phytochemicals.”

Phytochemicals are chemical compounds that occur naturally in plants and are responsible for their color and “organoleptic” properties (pertaining to our senses), such as the purple of blueberries or the smell of garlic: micronutrients that many scientists now estimate to number as many as 10,000 that have the potential to affect diseases such as cancer, stroke, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. And these are scientists and doctors at places like Mayo Clinic and Sloan Kettering, not your local alternative medicine practitioner.

In fact the vast majority of cancer treatments today include regiments of a wide variety of anti-oxidants, trace elements, micronutrients and phytochemicals that the FDA says have no health benefit or nutritional value or “biological significance that has been established.”

Yet phytochemicals have been used as drugs forever, like aspirin that comes from willow tree bark and has anti-inflammatory properties. Recent studies have concluded that cancer is in part caused by chronic inflammation and taking aspirin can reduce certain kinds of cancer occurrences by almost 30 percent. Taxol, a phytochemical extracted from the Pacific yew tree, is used to fight breast cancer. Punica granatum, an extract from pomegranates, has been shown to combat prostate cancer. Abundant in many fruits and vegetables, selenium is involved with major metabolic pathways, including thyroid hormone metabolism and immune function. The list is long and growing rapidly.

How food is grown and when it is harvested and what our senses tell us about it probably matters much more than we realize. Fresh taste and smell and bright natural colors are evidence of the presence of abundant phytochemicals, and our bodies don’t need a Ph.D. to know this. We’ve evolved and survived over millennia learning this.

In the sage words of Obi-Wan Kenobe: “Trust your feelings, Luke.” Go with organic.

~ Bob Silvestri is founder and chairman of Environmental Media Fund and over the past decade has worked on a variety of projects involving scientific research about organic food, agriculture, nutrition and human health. Recent projects include fiscal sponsorship of “Harmony: A New Way of Looking at Our World” in association with Balcony Films and the Prince of Wales Foundation.



Stanford School of Medicine; Health Benefits from Organic Foods; Sept. 3, 2012; by Michelle Brandt Sept. 3, 2012.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition; Guidance for Industry: Evidence-Based Review System for the Scientific Evaluation of Health Claims; January 2009.

Wall Street Journal; 'Junk DNA' Debunked - Studies Find Human Genomic Makeup Is Vastly Messier; New Disease Links Seen; By Gautam Naik and Robert Lee Holz; Sept. 5, 2012.

Wikipedia Foundation online.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Susan Kirsch September 18, 2012 at 03:26 PM
Bob's article confirms conventional wisdom. It motivates me to step into my garden to pick ripe, red organic raspberries that with just a touch willingly fall into my fingers, and once in my mouth explode with taste. It's an age-old system of communication (some might even think communion) between plant and human that "science" often fails to capture with its studies.
Haggis September 18, 2012 at 04:42 PM
Excellent article--I fear we will be having more of this "junk science" and with people becoming less willing to read through in depth articles--more reliance on bits and bites, headlines will be taken for the whole story--thanks to Patch and contributors like Bob we can be truly informed.
Barbara Petty September 18, 2012 at 05:07 PM
Stemple Creek is the best! Great meat, great people. I cringe when I don't know where my meat has come from.
George Gordon September 18, 2012 at 07:29 PM
What I often wonder about is how certain groups can get funding for some of the very worst reasons to come to stupid conclusions. We eat organic food because we don't like to eat pesticides. How difficult is that to understand?
Bob Silvestri September 18, 2012 at 10:52 PM
Chuck Benbrook of the Organic Center published a response to the Stanford study: http://www.organicconsumers.org/benbrook_annals_response2012.pdf, and Common Dreams reported today on Cornucopia Institute research on the funders of the Stanford study, which include Monsanto and the industrial agriculture conglomerate Cargill. http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/09/12-8
Bob Silvestri September 19, 2012 at 02:41 AM
Larry Anderson of Mill Valley wrote me to say: I like how you say that "I am not a scientist." Who is? I guess a degree would give one credibility but then what? Is anyone qualified to give rationale and answers on any scientific issue? In London there is a scientific group that meets in the Athenaeum and discusses scientific issues. Everyone has a slightly different perspective on everything. Are there ever any winners? Hard to say. Usually the person with the "Biggest Name" is given the most notice even though that person's argument was the weakest. Here you have "Bob Silvestri" taking on the academic establishment and handing them their hat. Your article should get twice the play of Stanford's. But will it? Probably not.
Bob Silvestri September 19, 2012 at 04:59 PM
Reuters - Study finds multiple types of tumors in rats fed on Monsanto's GM corn http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-gmcrops-safety-idUSBRE88I0L020120919
Scott Yeager September 19, 2012 at 05:04 PM
It's very simple. Organic fruits and vegetables almost always taste better, plus they have no pesticides. That's the difference, I never thought there was any nutritional gain with organics.
Rico September 20, 2012 at 12:19 AM
Here is another article about GMO corn. And remember, this is fed to factory farmed beef that many people eat. http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage_html
Rico September 20, 2012 at 12:21 AM
Sorry, that link is not working now, I don't know why.
Mari September 20, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Arsenic found in rice - source : pestcides. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/09/arsenic-and-rice-yes-again/
Bob Silvestri September 20, 2012 at 01:49 AM
Another big "tout" about agribusiness's GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in food has been that we needed it to "feed the world." However, it turns out that GMO crops yield less than conventional crops, which yield less than organic farming. It's all PR. Exposed: the great GM crops myth http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html Does planting GMO seed boost farmers' profits? http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/news/leopold-letter/1999/fall/does-planting-gmo-seed-boost-farmers-profits Union of Concerned Scientists - GMO Failure to Yield http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf
David Harband September 21, 2012 at 05:36 AM
Nice article. One area that you didn't even mention was the increasing tendency for "frankenfoods", that's what I call regular grocery fruit, to be largely rotten on the inside while appearing perfect on the outside. It is intuitively obvious that there is something wrong with many non-organic fruits. And considering that many stone fruits contain cyanide compounds in their pits, it becomes likely that people are eating the poison which has leached into the fruit flesh. So, it's not just a "sawdust" taste. Considering the safeguards put into manufacturing food safely, it would seem like a good move to start monitoring grown fruit, not just looking for salmonella.
Bob Silvestri September 21, 2012 at 08:41 PM
Good point. It's along the lines of what I meant when I mentioned "finish enhancers," preservatives and artificial ripening in shipping containers. Some conventionally grown (agribusiness) fruit is sprayed with chemicals to maintain "firmness," color and so forth, but picked before they're ready. Then during shipping can begin to rot while maintaining a "marketable" appearance. And also some fruit in supermarkets, like apples, is sometimes months or even a year old, which also contributes to that problem. But chemical treatments can maintain their outside appearance.
Barry Schuler September 23, 2012 at 03:34 AM
Everyone seems to forget their basic high school science when they jump to conclusions. The problem today, is that studies which are meant to stimulate review and further experimentation are presented to the public by the press as scientific "fact." At best they are only theory. Mr. Silvestri, your notion that "Junk DNA" has been scientific fact is just not true. It is a theory to be proven or disproven. That's why Hubbard's study was conducted and published. Important to note his new findings are also theory until peer reviewed, replicated multiple times and verified. Only then would it become scientific fact. It's a long arduous process but how the scientific process works. The Stanford Study does not factually conclude there is no benefit to Organic produce. It only states that there have not been any studies to date that prove that Organically grown foods have more of certain nutrients than their traditionally grown counterparts. So what? The study in no way claims to contradict environmental and perhaps many other benefits of organic agriculture. The issue is how the press has reported and how people have had a hysterical response. I agree you should follow your senses and common sense. At the same time, as a responsible blogger you should attempt to help people to better understand how to interpret what they read rather than add fuel to the histrionics. I agree with the spirit of your blog but your presentation doesn't help make your reader smarter.
Bob Silvestri September 23, 2012 at 06:27 AM
I understand well how science works. But there's nothing I've written that is "adding fuel to histrionics." I'm entitled to my opinion, as you are, which is all I've stated. I also understand that according to scientific methods, very few things are ever really proven (e.g. there is still no scientific consensus on what gravity is, what constitutes life, or millions of other questions upon which our daily lives depend). However, if anyone is guilty of overstating the importance of Stanford's study, it's Stanford's doctors by how they reported their findings to the media. I would suggest that they have an equal if not greater "responsibility" to help people understand how to interpret it, rather than trading on the celebrity of Stanford's name as they're doing. The theories presented in my blog (obviously my own... why it's called a "blog") offer my readers other ways of looking at the issues, based on facts as equally sound (if not more sound) as Stanford's, and at the least offers them some healthy skepticism. I think you would have to agree that most science "facts" in history were still being hotly debated at the time they were abandoned. Your description of scientific process is theoretically fine but by the time anything passes the kind of rigor you suggest should exist as "proof" (re: global warming for example) we'll likely all be dead. Sometimes we just have to put your ideas out there, right now, and let people make their own decisions. I trust they will.
Bob Silvestri September 23, 2012 at 02:32 PM
For those interested in learning more about two of the funders of the Stanford Analysis, Monsanto and Cargill, a documentary that provides a good overview of how agri-business and factory farming has impacted our food and our food security is "Food, Inc." https://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Food_Inc./70108783?locale=en-US&mqso=80030196&mkwid=sCBd7F4jS&gclid=CLDynu3yy7ICFWjhQgodp0wAsw And, again, for information on current food issues the Center for Food Safety is an excellent resource. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/
Mama San September 23, 2012 at 04:15 PM
I suggest you read Your Turn in the Sunday Register written by Ron Tjeerdema about the natural toxins in plants. And remember when the first farmer made a choice of what grain to plant over another he was starting GMO.
Barry Schuler September 23, 2012 at 05:04 PM
I appreciate the response Bob. I state and agree that the big problem has been the way the Stanford Study was reported and blogged, tabloid style to produce headlines and web impressions. There are just no editorial standards scrutinizing words being published. The work of science has become like (and a pawn of) politics. We now have a society where folks only want to read affirmation of their beliefs and aggressively dismiss what they disagree with. It is difficult to have intelligent discussion. And no wonder, how do you find unbiased analysis from which to draw your own conclusions. My point is that you wield the term "Scientific Fact" like a light saber and in this post you do it incorrectly (not my opinion just fact). Example: your headline. Meta-studies by definition do not create any new SCIENCE, they attempt to distill insights from an existing body of work. The Study does not profess to conclude anything but a very narrow sliver of information. Your Junk DNA analog is also factually incorrect. Studies to prove or disprove the role of archival DNA are on-going and the jury is out. I laud you taking the opportunity to express your views on these pages. I'm simply challenging you to take it up a notch. ex: The Stanford Study offers no useful information about the value of consuming organically farmed products. Now examine who funded the research, Agri-business, do you expect an unbiased conclusion to be published? Then talk about what they actually looked at. Thx.
Tina McMillan September 23, 2012 at 05:05 PM
Not quite the same as Monsanto genetically modifying seeds so that they wont reproduce. We will be voting on this in November on labeling foods so that consumers know if GMO is in a product. I don't agree with every claim regarding organics I know from experience what I grow in my garden and eat fresh from my garden tastes better than what I buy at the grocery store. The real issue with GMO is the danger to the world wide food chain. Labeling for genetically engineered food? California voters will decide in November [The Sacramento Bee] By Laurel Rosenhall, The Sacramento Bee McClatchy-Tribune Information Services http://www.equities.com/news/headline-story?dt=2012-09-23&val=511238&cat=material
Rico September 23, 2012 at 07:07 PM
Vote yes on prop.37, and then boycott ALL products that contain GMO. Put Monsatan (Monsanto) out of business by not buying their products, that is the only way to stop them from their evil corporate ways.
Bob Silvestri September 23, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Thanks, Tina. And the story about GMOs goes far beyond nutrition or food safety: Mono-cropping, which is what GMO crops are, has ALWAYS been a bad idea throughout history. It depletes soil fertility and destroy's nature's greatest strength and the best hope the planet has for healthy and resilient ecosystems, diversity. But worse, it ironically opens the door to food shortages just as it did in Ireland during the Great Potato Famine, when the entire country relied mostly on one kind of potato that was attacked by a blight. But probably the most worrisome concern is that GMO seeds are patented lifeforms. Monsanto has been suing farmers into bankruptcy who have some of their GMO soybeans growing on their land, even though the seeds got their naturally from another field (wind, birds, etc.). Monsanto has tried to patent basmati rice (a staple in the Indian diet) on the world market, then turned around and sued long time Indian rice producers for selling their products in the U.S. GMOs are not about crop yields or feeding the world or nutrition. They are about one thing and only one thing: making money by patenting food crops. Watch: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/
Bob Silvestri September 23, 2012 at 10:19 PM
We have evolved for millennia in a world filled with poisons and toxins. But this is entirely different than the more than 500 untested chemicals we're now putting into our environment and our bodies every year, worldwide, none of which even existed 50 years ago. Our bodies are simply incapable of dealing with this, with most of the worst offenders ending up being stored in our organs and our deep body fat, waiting for some unknowable tipping point to be reached before our system is overloaded and suffers disease. That these artificially created toxins are bad for us is no longer even scientifically debatable (like global warming). The only remaining questions are how much can we take and how much can the world's ecosystems take.
Tina McMillan September 24, 2012 at 02:05 AM
Corporations are not automatically evil. Monsanto's actions are destructive and greedy. Traits that can be a part of any business. In the case of GMO foods everyone suffers because the tainted seeds become part of the eco system and the company tries to use that fact as a basis to control all food production. The U.S. should sue Monsanto for having corrupted our ecosystem and make them pay millions of dollars to farmers whose fields have been contaminated. Time to turn the tables.
Bob Silvestri September 24, 2012 at 02:17 AM
Barry, it's not that I disagree with you on definitions, which is why I purposely put "scientific fact" on quotes to question the term in the media. And I suppose I could have written a blog about how corporate funding is distorting "science." But that wasn't my goal. Perhaps you should blog about that because you're right, it's an important problem. However, I think there's another aspect to all this and that fault lies with academia itself because after all, they more than anyone are aware of how media presents things. So one has to wonder, why do they rarely do anything to clarify their work or its limitations? After all, it is their responsibility. But in a "publish or perish," do what it takes to get tenure world, in a world where low paid scientists are as fallable as anyone when it comes to craving their 15 seconds in the media spotlight, in a world where "celebrity" in and of itself is now a highly paid "job" even when completely devoid of accomplishment, what can we expect? I welcome you to join me in taking on the disingenuous, media seeking pronouncements of researchers, like those at Stanford. Maybe the public is turning off to science, in part because science has become sensationalized by scientists themselves. I'm just doing my part to try to balance the ship.
Dee Baucher September 24, 2012 at 06:29 PM
Mr. Schuler: The Stanford paper was not a study, it was merely an analysis of a specific group of individually selected studies. It made headlines throughout the lay press, and attempted to influence consumers into the purchase of non-organic produce, concluding that they have equivalent nutritional properties with organic produce. This was an obvious ploy to get consumers to purchase the products of corporate agribusiness, rather than to demand the more costly organic products that have begun to be preferred by a more astute public. There was an acknowledgement of "possible" benefits of organic products compared to conventional ones, associated with their lack of pesticides...although this benefit was not emphasized in the paper. The only nutritional components that were focused on were a small group of vitamins (A,E, C, D), and none of the co-enzymes or other significant nutritional components were considered in their analysis. I believe Mr. Silvestri is correct in his criticism and commend him for pointing out the major flaws in this "headline grabbing" paper that was generated from a Stanford group, paid for by those with clear "conflicts of interest". It is very disconcerting for a reputable medical and research institution to be associated with this flimsy and clearly distorted paper. Because of the source of the paper, those with a clear agenda had an abundant opportunity to capitalize upon the media's tendency to reiterate (relatively) unsubstantiated claims.
Active Thinker September 24, 2012 at 06:47 PM
Yes, stop planting grass lawns that do no one any good...it makes me sick to see lawn after lawn and no one ever goes on them...waste of space, land, resources, water, chemicals that go into keeping it green...
Dee Baucher September 24, 2012 at 06:57 PM
Thank you for pointing out many of the inherent flaws of this deceptive paper. I was also very disturbed with the misleading conclusions that were being disseminated to the public. We live in an era of overwhelming environmental damage and major human health consequences associated with the toxins that we are all being exposed to. Some of these toxins come directly from our food products. Indeed, when the amniotic fluid of pregnant women in the Bay Area is studied, we find that our unborn children are being literally bathed in toxic substances. From the National Cancer Institute's report of 2009 on environmental cancer risks, it is clear that many of the specific toxins associated with agribusiness have played havoc with our health. We can not afford to remain silent or complacent with this issue, despite the clear profit motives of the chemical and agricultural industries. Again, thank you.
Bob Silvestri September 24, 2012 at 08:34 PM
Thank you, for the thoughtful comments
Bob Silvestri September 25, 2012 at 05:56 PM
Watch this short video and Vote Yes on Prop 37 to require labeling of all GMO food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lni6OAJz3sk Share it with friends


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »