COLUMBUS, Ohio - Much media attention has been given to the recent release of a Stanford University study that found little evidence of additional health benefits from organic foods. But other experts, including Joe Pedretti of the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service (MOSES) say the study was flawed, and that a number of unknowns remain.

"We just don't know what happens in the human body when we're constantly exposed to multiple synthetic chemicals. And so, we tend to always say, 'Let's err on the side of precaution; let's keep this out of our food supply.'"

According to Pedretti, organic food does not contain additives, antibiotics, flavor enhancers, or artificial sweeteners or preservatives that have been linked to health problems. He also points out that organic growing helps reduce environmental contamination and the potential for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Perry Clutts, who runs an organic dairy farm at Circleville, southeast of Columbus, says the Stanford study did not take into account the extensive and high-quality data easily available from the USDA and EPA about pesticide residue levels and dietary risks of non-organic foods.

"The President's council on cancer, you know, in 2010 reported that you can reduce your risk of cancer by eating foods that aren't sprayed with petrochemicals. That to me is a big health situation, considering how much cancer we have, in the country and in the world."

Besides the potential chemical exposure that consumers face, Clutts says, there may be greater risks for people on the production end of the food chain.

"It's not only on the food, but on the people who actually produce the food. They do have a great risk of exposure to these chemicals, when they are mixing tanks and doing a lot of this other stuff. And the thing is, we don't know what the long-term effects of that are going to be."

Another critique of the Stanford study is at ow.ly/dCLxd.




get more stories like this via email

More than three in five Utahns believe the state is on the wrong track and their quality of life is worse today than it was five years ago.

A new report by the Utah Foundation paints a bleak picture about how Utah residents feel about their home state. Data in the report found the cost of living and government dysfunction were the most important issues for Utah voters in 2024.

Rep. Robert Spendlove, R-Sandy, an economist for Zions Bank, said there is growing political and economic disenfranchisement among Utahns.

"People just don't feel like they have the opportunities that they've had in the past," Spendlove explained. "The rate of inflation has come down in the last year, but the overall price increase remains. So overall prices are up about 20% in the last five years and so people are really struggling to adjust."

Spendlove observed Utahns are struggling to adjust to having to pay approximately 20% more on things such as housing, food, gas and even car insurance. He suspects prices are unlikely to come down and contended Utahns' income needs to go up but added it will take time.

The report's authors said the data is useful for state leaders to understand the needs of Utahns and get the state on the right track and improve quality of life.

Ahead of this year's election in November, the report found other issues relating to political dysfunction included voters feeling ignored by politicians, government overreach and partisan politics were at the top of the list.

Spendlove noted it is why he supports Utah Gov. Spencer Cox's call to "Disagree Better." He pointed out while the initiative aims to improve attitudes and behaviors across the political spectrum by incentivizing consensus building, he is unsure whether policy solutions at the state level are being discussed.

"One of the questions is, 'Do we revisit how people get to the ballot?' 'Do we lower the threshold on signature gathering?' 'Do we have different models of primaries?'" Spendlove outlined. "It is kind of early in that discussion, but I think it is a really important discussion that we need to be having."

The report found voters who participated in the survey expressed frustration in not feeling heard and contend elected officials pay too little attention to voters in favor of corporations, religious organizations or special-interest groups.


get more stories like this via email

Consumer groups are accusing major grocery retailers - like Amazon, Kroger and Walmart - of price gouging, both during and after the pandemic.

The allegation of corporate greed comes after a new report from the Federal Trade Commission found profits for grocery chains jumped sharply, at rates that could not be justified by supply chain disruptions.

Angela Huffman is president of the nonprofit Farm Action.

"It's one thing to raise your prices to cover higher expenses, but what these companies did is use the pandemic as an excuse to exploit the American people who needed to put food on their tables," said Huffman. "And the FTC report shows that they're still doing it, here in 2024."

The report found that retailer profits rose to 6% over total costs in 2021, and 7% in the first three quarters of 2023 - compared to 5.6% in 2015.

According to a report from Help Advisor, California households pay the highest grocery costs in the country, averaging almost $300 a week - about $27 more than the national average.

The Food Industry Association blames today's high prices on high labor costs and credit card payment fees.

Huffman said she thinks the feds should take anti-trust action to increase competition - and consider forcing the grocery behemoths to break up.

"That would be the ideal outcome is to take away their excessive power," said Huffman. "But other than that, these companies can be fined for this kind of price gouging. And that's another action we would support. There needs to be some kind of consequences."

The FTC staff report recommends "further inquiry by the commission and policymakers," but doesn't propose specific remedies.




get more stories like this via email

Air travelers could face fewer obstacles in securing a refund if their flight is canceled or changed under new federal rules announced Wednesday.

The moves are being praised by watchdog groups. The Department of Transportation said airlines are now required to promptly provide passengers with automatic cash refunds when they are owed one.

Teresa Murray, consumer watchdog director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said some carriers have not adhered to standards, leaving passengers in a bind.

"They would drag their feet, and they would say, 'Well, you bought your ticket from a ticket agent, so we don't know where your money is. Or, here, have a voucher,'" Murray explained.

Amid higher complaint volumes, companies will be forced to act quickly. The new rules, which are being phased in, provide clearer definitions for travel disruptions, including delays of at least three hours on a domestic flight and six hours on international flights. A key industry group responded to the announcement by touting transparency efforts among carriers.

Murray acknowledged most people are not frequent flyers, and it is hard for them to keep up on all the least practices and policies among airlines.

"The average person only flies once every 18 months," Murray pointed out. "This will just bring transparency to that process and it kind of evens the playing field."

Murray added it could come in handy for Midwestern customers when a winter storm wreaks havoc on air travel. The new rules also require refunds for baggage fees when a piece of luggage is delayed by 12 hours or more for domestic flights. And there must be upfront disclosure on fees for first and second checked bags and carry-on bags.


get more stories like this via email