No good evidence organic food healthier.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/02/organics-food

For years, it was the nation's favourite growth industry. Throughout the Nineties and for much of this decade, organic leeks, carrots, onions and other fruit and vegetables enjoyed a startling upsurge in popularity. More and more supermarket shelf space was devoted to their sale as the middle class rushed for food that was natural and free of pesticides while local entrepreneurs, their car boots bulging with knobbly turnips and strange-looking potatoes, delivered an ever-increasing number of organic veggie boxes to households round the country.

According to one industry estimate, the organic food market was worth more than £2bn in Britain last year and were it not for the recession might have continued to swell for years to come. Today, organically managed farms and estates account for 4% of all UK agricultural land. Despite our financial problems, and the expense of producing low-yield organic foods, it seems the nation still expects its food to be wholesome.

But last week, the movement's image suffered a blow when the Food Standards Agency published a report that examined the different nutrient levels found in crops and livestock from both organic and non-organic farming. It also looked at the health benefits of eating organic food - and decided that there were none.

"Looking at all of the studies published in the last 50 years, we have concluded that there's no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health based on the nutrient content," said Dr Alan Dangour, who led the review by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

• Robin McKie is science editor of the Observer


EDITED to remove all but the first four paragraphs; the rest is at the link.

[ensho]

1. common sense tells us organic is better

corporate sense lies

[dysfunctional press]

6. 'common sense' also makes a lot of mistakes.

nt

[ensho]

16. does it?

nt

[JonQ]

106. Yes, quite often

To quote Dr. Einstein: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Our minds did not evolve to intuitively understand everything around us perfectly. We are heavily biased by our own personal history, our culture, and our place in the universe.

Common sense once said the sun moved around the earth and was swallowed every night, only to be reborn again in the morning.

I choose the scientific method.

[rollingrock]

55. This report has been soundly debunked

'The Soil Association in the UK also pointed out yesterday that the FSA left out a more rigorous report commissioned by the European Union that found a range of "nutritionally desirable compounds" like antioxidants, vitamins, and glycosinolates were present in greater amounts in organic crops, while the amount of "nutritionally undesirable compounds" like mycotoxins, glycoalkaloids, cadmium and nickel were present in lower amounts by comparison in organic crops'...more...


www.huffingtonpost.com/paula-crossfield/organic-versus-convention_b_247801.html

[JonQ]

25. Elaborate

Very little that we eat is natural (agriculture doesn't exactly occur naturally).

What's natural about about clearing huge sections of land, planting only one type of crop that had been intensely inbred for the last 10,000 years and heaping manure on it collected from other animals that had likewise been inbred for the past 10,000 years and were fed other plants we'd inbred . . . . and it goes on.

Unless you live off wild animals and seaweed you're eating manmade products, organic or not is merely arguing details.

[ensho]

you forgot man made toxins - pesticides, fertilizers, modified seeds

we don't have to eat that

[JonQ]

28. Many manmade pesticides are based

on naturally occurring chemicals (plants have more experience than we do defending themselves from insects).

Difference being we are merely spraying the surface of the plant with pesticides, and as such they can be rinsed off easily. The naturally occurring ones are systemic, meaning they are in every bite.

And inorganic fertilizers merely add the same compounds that organic ones would, just cheaper and without all the biological contaminates. The nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium in manure is chemically identical to that in man made fertilizer.

And there are no health detriments associated with genetically modified seeds, numerous studies have shown this.

Organic is fine, if you prefer it. I just take offense to the anti-science bent many pro-organic types are on. Chemicals = evil. Natural = good. Man made = evil. What about natural chemicals? What about the fact that very little of what we eat (organic or not) is actually "natural"?

[ensho]

31. I disagree about genetically modified seeds

if they were so wonderful why do they want to hide which seeds have been modified.

why are many other countries not allowing them?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Because a bunch of scientifically illiterate dumbasses...

keep slandering them.

Common sense.

[JonQ]

61. I don't know about you

but I refuse to eat food that contains DNA. So I go all natural: organic broccoli mmm, just as mother nature produced before mankind. In huge fields, heaped with fertilizer from our livestock.

Yep, just as mother nature intended.

:sarcasm:

[JonQ]

60. A variety of reasons

first off many other countries ban them because A) protectionism, most of these companies are american, they want to protect their farmers from competition 2) superstition, countries that think condoms are evil white magic also burn GM seeds, hmm 3) propaganda from opponents here 4) concerns over copy right laws.

And I don't think most companies are hiding the fact that they produce GM seeds.

[ensho]

94. they are hiding which foods come from their seeds

how sly of you to change the subject

[JonQ]

105. Could it be because of superstitious

anti-science luddites that have branded GM crops "frankenfood" (what a ludicrous term)?

I'm sure if you offered them the choice of being banned in most countries, or being free to sell their products, but with a little sticker on them, they'd go with the 2nd option.

There are many forces backing the organic movement. Most are either to get money, or oppose progress, health is a smoke screen and not even a quaternary reason to oppose GM foods (which have been in widespread use for greater than 20 years with no reported health affects).

[rd_kent]

63. Really? How? By paying more for the same product?

It been know for some time that "organic" food is no more nutritious than regular food. Sure, it may not be exposed to chemicals and pesticides, but its no "healthier".

[paulsby]

66. science trumps common sense

"common sense" is fine, but when scientific evidence, trumps "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" thinking, rational people take the scientific evidence.

common sense told a certain natural philosopher that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. scientific inquiry showed that's not true.

reality is more important than what common sense tells us reality SHOULD be.

you might as well be a creationist, for your comment.

[JonQ]

81. In my heart I know it's better

so I don't care about the science, which is probably evil.

Organic fan or jesus fan?

[paulsby]

82. are you trying to parody an anti-scientific creationist type mentality

i am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say yes.

nice one

[JonQ]

91. Yep

There is a lot of overlap between the creationist mentality, and the organic mentality, that neither group would care to acknowledge.

[BlooInBloo]

90. Moar faith-based reasoning, please.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Yeah, heard it on RW radio. And, "the Organic Stuff comes from the same Megafarms anyway."

Don't believe it.

Fuck them, fuck Monsanto, fuck chemicals, get good certified organic produce grown as close to home as possible.

:patriot:

[panader0]

3. "based on the nuitritional content"

It not the food, it's the pesticides and chemicals that end up not only in the food, but in the water.

[robinlynne]

10. exactly. I caught that too. The article is pure bullshit in other words.

[H2O Man]

12. Exactly. n/t

[DCKit]

23. And all those dangerous fungi which make organics toxic are repelled by pesticides?

Those organic assassins are sneaking organic carrots in amongst my perfect factory carrots to poison me - and don't get me started on what they're doing to potatoes and fruit. I knew it was a conspiracy to ruin the good names of those fine mega corps we subsidize so heavily with "Family Farm" money.

I would put a selection of each, all the commercial fruits and vegetables, one grown organically in healthy soil and one grown under commercial methods in front of any three year old and ask them which looks better, healthier and more appetizing. Obviously, the people who wrote this fictional study are unqualified to tell the difference - and that doesn't even begin to address the issue of soil health and the uptake of macro and micro-nutrients.

Additionally, the article is poorly written. Either there were two (or more) authors, of the author is schizophrenic. Half the time I couldn't tell which side of the argument was being addressed.

[Tutankhamun]

71. You need to look up schizophrenia.

[DCKit]

72. Teh voices, teh voices!

I don't believe in multiple personality disorder. Just a pet peeve of mine.

[Tutankhamun]

76. I'm not sure if I do either. I just don't get why people think mpd=schizophrenia.

It's such a common misconception that it actually reinforces itself.

[pinto]

4. Please limit reposts to no more than 4 "fair use" paragraphs of copyrighted material.

Thanks.

Article is under this copyright -

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

[Warren Stupidity]

8. And how about not reposting the same story at least three times this week?

The OP was likely unaware of the prior posts, but it seems that a certain cohort of DU'ers are just thrilled by this report, as if it justifies some attitude they have been harboring, and can't wait to share it gleefully with all of us. The OP ought to google some of the rather enlightening responses to the first few postings of the UK 'study' for a clue as to why this report is not all that the OP hopes it is.

[Vincardog]

5. IF you would rather eat pesticide ridden corporate produce feel free, don't come crying to us when

the cumulative effect knocks off your liver.
Besides"
Organic TASTES BETTER.

[dysfunctional press]

7. "Organic TASTES BETTER."

you might want to check out the most recent installment of 'bullshit'. (penn & teller's showtime show)

[Warren Stupidity]

9. bullshit is frequently full of it nt

[dysfunctional press]

33. that's true too...

but they were doing a blind tatse test, and upwards of 70% of the people chose the non-organic produce as better tasting.

i'm not trying to say that it's anything definitive or a peer-reviewed study- and i'm not trying to say that non-organic tatses better.

i'm just saying that it's complete bullshit to say that organic tastes better. it CAN taste better, but so can non-organic; it depends on the individual piece of produce, as well as the individual doing the tasting.

[Cha]

62. I don't give a shit about your "70%"..I know

Organic food tastes better after decades of choosing it over the pesticide laden of inferior quality.

[dysfunctional press]

68. sure...whatever you want believe- that's fine.

if you want to believe that organic tastes better- that's certainly your prerogative.

but here in the real world- that just isn't the case.

[Vincardog]

73. It MIGHT have something to do with what is being compared. Could be a non-organic Golden Delicious

apple tastes better than an organic baking apple.
The decision I make is which do I want in MY body?

[Jakes Progress]

87. Keep in mind. These guys are magicians.

It is their trade to fool and deceive. They have a particular view to push so they get to select the people on film and they get to edit and sequence the film.

You could do the same thing with politics. If I got to choose who spoke and then edit, I could get a backward, inarticulate Democrat and a seemingly bright republican and use them to prove what is not true.

[dysfunctional press]

88. although they do edit to the better ones for tv- they did give the total percentages for the day...

and it's funny to see the pretentious twits who think that organic ALWAYS tastes better, or that they can tell the difference, getting totally pwned. :rofl:

[Jakes Progress]

95. Taste is in the tongue of the eater.

Same thing has been done with wine-tasting where $5 red jug beats $90 Cabs. That's not the point.

Using the uninformed as a basis for proving your point is silly. And don't be so naive as to believe what Las Vegas shill men say about telling you the total percentages. The only thing that lies more than edited images is jumbled numbers. Those that believe this kind of "Let's make fun of the dweeb's" entertainment will actually prove a point are the ones being pwned. Each of us has the potential for twitdom. Laughing at idiots is not recommended since all it takes is the right circumstance to turn that camera into a mirror.

Better if they took on the powerful. But then they wouldn't get a tv show.

[dysfunctional press]

101. and for a lot of really stupid people, it's all in their heads.

it's great business though- get pretentious shitheads to voluntarily pay more for produce that doesn't taste any better, by getting them to think that they can actually tell any difference...:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

like they always say- nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intellect of the american consumer.

[Vincardog]

14. I have an organic garden, grow organic chickens and eggs. I do not need to watch TV to tell me

what my taste buds can tell me.

[dysfunctional press]

32. it's called the placebo effect.

try taking a fully blind taste test, and then get back to me.

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. No, it's called confirmation bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

People believe organic food tastes better because that's what they want to believe.

[dysfunctional press]

54. thank-you.

i didn't think i was using the term correctly, but it's sort of similar- a placebo 'works' because people think/want it to- and the same 'confirmation bias' happens with organic food, in regard to taste.

[Marr]

100. Oh, I don't think that's necessarily true.

We kept chickens and grew our own vegetables when I was a kid, and they were all delicious. My mom still does grow her own stuff, and it's a lot tastier than the stuff in the store.

I don't think it has anything to do with "organic" growing techniques or pesticides, though. When you're shipping food, you pick it earlier and do other things to assure it gets to market in a fresh state. If you're just pulling things out of your garden, you can let it ripen until it's absolutely at it's peak, then go munch on it.

I think a lot of people who insist that "organic" foods taste better are really just saying the stuff they got at the Farmer's Market tastes better. Well, no kidding. :p

[Cha]

64. I had customers in our

co-op on Saturday talk about that so called big "study" about Organic food not being better for you than Organic and they all thought it was bogus.

I say follow the money.

[dysfunctional press]

69. "I say follow the money."

right now, the money is in the word "organic", because so many consumers are willing to pay extra, just to get that word on their food labels...:eyes:

[Cha]

74. And, you're a little one man bandwagon

attempting to get them to stop being healthy..you lose, sucka.

[dysfunctional press]

83. not at all-

i just reject the notion that organic produce has any real discernable difference in taste. the people who maintain that organic food TASTES better are only fooling themselves.

if paying more money for the same nutrients somehow makes people feel better- more power to them. :shrug:

[Cha]

96. Bullshit..it's all about you according to you..

and guess what..it's not. It's about all of us who know Organic is better in every way.

[dysfunctional press]

102. if that's what you believe- more power (and higher produce bills) to you.

there are also LOTS of people who "know" that their god created the world in 7 days about 6,000 years ago.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[depakid]

18. Could be that you're simply lacking in the physical ability to taste

There are a quite a few people like that. Same with the sense of smell or the ability to identify hues.

[dysfunctional press]

36. i can tatse just fine- most of my produce comes from my garden.

but blanket statements like "organic tastes better" are just complete bullshit. it CAN taste better, but so can non-organic. and in a blind taste test, most people would not be able to differentiate to any great degree.

[tabatha]

44. Taste is very very subjective.

If you are used to non-organic food, perhaps organic will not taste better.
If you are used to organic, probably non-organic will not taste better.

That is a stupid test.

[MindPilot]

75. Not when you cut a piece of fruit in half

and ask people to pick the organic one. Or you tell them one is organic and one is not and they rave about the clearly superior taste and texture of the organic sample.

Not a stupid test, but gullible people.

[tabatha]

77. Well, if they cannot tell the difference (none) between two halves

of the same banana, how on earth can any of their observations be taken as valid?

[dysfunctional press]

84. exactly.

these are the same kinds of people who are constantly going on about how organic food simply "tastes better".
it doesn't.
and that's not to say that it tastes worse, either-

they all taste the same.

there's good and bad produce on both sides of the aisle.

[pansypoo53219]

27. organic carrots taste WAY better.

and the only ones to make my hands orange while peeling. washed off. and i prefer getting the bulk ones at my health food store.

[dysfunctional press]

38. not necessarily-

you WANT it to taste better, you think that it SHOULD taste better, and so you convince yourself that it does.

but it's just not necessarily so- there can be bad organic carrots, and there can be very tasty non-organic carrots.

taste in general is VERY subjective, and differs greatly from person to person.

[MindPilot]

37. in the show not one single person was able to tell the difference

I would love to see all the results, not just the 100% who got it wrong and made it to the final cut.

Just my guess, I'll bet that more than 50% got it wrong.

[dysfunctional press]

39. they did give the total percentages...

it was something in the neighborhood of 75% of the people that got it wrong, iirc.

i really liked the one where they cut the banana in half, and told people one was organic, and the other wasn't- and the people were all gushing over how much better the 'organic' banana was...:rofl:

[MindPilot]

40. that is the problem with watching things late at night

I'll have to go look at it again. The point is valid; pure guess work would put the error rate around 50% but as they showed with the banana, most of the differences exist only in peoples' minds.

I don't recall, did anyone actually say "I really don't taste any difference"?

[Gman2]

41. Where I have heard Organic really matters is med herb.

The techniques used by either are different. Nonorgs use the bludgeon method of nutrition. Like all of us that piss out more drugs and vitamins than we retain. Organics, give enough, and a wide variety of compounds. They are not narrow focus. There are a great many interactions that are stopped by nonorgs. You cannot support these natural systems with harsh ag. The slower, more natural growth pattern of org veggies etc, make them more flavorful. I would also expect the nutrition to be superior, mass for mass. Many of the more subtle flavors in med herb, only exhibit, when grown org. This is a complex subject not open to blanket statements.

[bertman]

43. thank you, Gman2. What you said is very true. The trace minerals and other soil components

found in organic foods are lost to industrial agriculture due to soil depletion.

As far as the flavors, I'm not so sure. But I'll stick with organically grown because of all the collateral benefits that have been mentioned in this thread and others.

[Luminous Animal]

86. Not all produce sold under the organic label

will taste better. The big organic producers have as much invested in producing food for shelf longevity, the ability to be grown & harvested out of season, and uniform appearance as do conventional produce producers. To that end, they will farm hybrid produce that have been developed for economy rather than for taste. My husband was a produce manager for a small organic store and purchased in season produce from local organic farmers. And yes, those organic vegetables grown to be harvested at the peak of their flavor did indeed taste better than hybrid varieties grown organically but developed to be produced out of season. An organic produce grocer who respects taste over convenience will not sell corn in January or tomatoes in April.

[BlooInBloo]

103. Occassionally I try different organics to see if they taste claims are true....

After 10+ tries on different foods, there has only been 1 where the taste improvement was anywhere close to justifying the price difference: organic ketchup. The difference there is like night and day. The others - meh.

[Luminous Animal]

104. I do believe that when people refer to

organics and taste they mean fresh produce.

[spooked911]

13. yes-- I never thought organic was about NUTRIENTS but more about the

lack of chemicals and it being more environmentally friendly

[robinlynne]

11. bullshitsky.

[depakid]

15. Yep- nutrients are created out of thin air- or dead soils

No worries about uptake- or replenishment, and those big pretty looking California strawberries actually do pack the same flavor explosion as the smaller, "uglier" organic, Oregon ones.

If Professor Leyser is really worried about feeding Britian, he might want to look at food distribution- how the concentration in the market by the likes of Tesco etc., screws local producers and consumers alike.

[Cha]

65. The organic produce that my

friends grow here in New York actually looks better than the commercial grown our co-op gets because it's cheaper and some people don't care..but, even I'm surprised how many people are like me and won't eat produce grown with pesticides.

[elocs]

17. I sure I read this here a couple of days ago to the exact reviews this OP is receiving.

I wouldn't dispute that organic foods are better, I simply cannot afford them. I would also not confuse "organic" with "natural". There are many things that are "natural" which are very, very bad for anyone.

[booley]

19. wasn't there already a debunking of this?

I recall another report that pointed out several flaws in the above.

Not to mention, nutrients are not the only issue.

[ixion]

20. You go right on ahead munching on your processed 'food' product

I'll stick with real food.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. would you like that with 2,4-D, atrazine, or paraquat?

If one would like to understand the depths of deceptive bullshit the OP's cited article represents, just spend a few moments googling 'common agricultural pesticides'. Ugh.

[JonQ]

26. Define real food

[Warren Stupidity]

29. local low processed less contaminated

for starters. Definitional arguments are such fun. Read up on what agribusiness is pouring down your throat. It ain't good for you, it is good for them.

[JonQ]

30. Local food is healthier than foreign food?

Also organic food can be processed and contaminated as well. As manure is the primary source of E. coli contamination I wouldn't say organic is safer than inorganic fertilizer.

[MH1]

35. Healthier for the environment which = healthier for people in that environment

If you separate the consumption of food from the process of producing it, it MAY be that you can show that a foreign grown food is in some cases "healthier" than a locally grown item. But when you factor in all aspects of production, it is unlikely.

And by foreign I mean thousands of miles away, not just across the border in Canada or Mexico for someone who lives 10 feet from the border.

[JonQ]

58. But that's more of an enviromental issue

this study was looking at the food itself. I wouldn't say arugula produced in my backyard is necessarily healthier than arugula produced in brazil.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Humans have been ingesting shit for millenia, agri-pesti-crap, not so much.

I'll take my chances with shit, thanks. Really you should do some of your own research. Try a few hours inside google: common agricultural pesticides, you might learn something.

[JonQ]

59. People have been dying of diseases for millenia

starvation too.

I've worked in the agriculture business, I know what goes on. I also know that you can't feed 6 billion people, even with no waste, corruption, or graft on organic food. It just isn't possible.

I also know that nitrogen from cow manure is no different than nitrogen from a chemical plant. It's the same element. Most of the impetus behind organic is a fear of technology, rather than hard science. As this study, and the knee jerk reaction to it, have shown.

[Odin2005]

80. +1

[Sebastian Doyle]

107. If it's from a MonSatan seed

It's not.

[nebenaube]

21. So many straw men

There may be essentially no difference in nutrient content but there is no doubt that there are vast differences in toxins. There is no evidence that GM crops are safe to consume, indeed there are enough indications that such crops are damaging immune systems and ecosystems to date that we can envoke an axiom regarding the obvious truths.

We co-evolved with all the fungi so I'd prefer the trivial risk of eating the fungus. You can keep your daily dose organo-phospates, free-radicals and neuro-toxins.

[kestrel91316]

24. Grown without use of herbicides or pesticides = healthier.

Healthier for the farm workers, healthier for the soil, healthier for neighboring ecosystems, and healthier for ME. And you'll never convince me that crops grown in dead, depleted soils with lots of artificial fertilizer have the same amount and quality of nutrients as crops grown in healthier, biologically active, well-composted soils.

I don't give a damn what the Guardian says.

[AspenRose]

34. I find it interesting that this comes out just as "Food, Inc." hits the theaters

:think:

[iris27]

42. This has already been posted in another thread.

And I guess I'll say here what I said there...I don't believe anyone was under the impression that organic spinach has more iron or what have you. It just has no toxic pesticide/herbicide residues. To me that's a no-brainer, especially in an age where American women's breastmilk tests positive for all sorts of toxic chemicals thanks to industrial food...they are stored and build up in fatty tissue over time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Yet in all these threads...

there are dozens of people angry and upset because they disagree with the finding and are attacking it.

Making it clear there was a myth that organic food was more nutritious,

[Warren Stupidity]

49. yeah how dare we point out it is disingenuous bullshit?

The upset is over the strawman nature of this idiocy, and the ridiculous gloating of those posting it, who seem to feel somehow threatened by organic food, local food, slow food, and all this bother over agribusiness.

You want to ignore the crap agribusiness is pouring down your throat for their profit? Go right ahead. Eat up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. If it's disingenuous, why are you so threatened by it?

It's clearly not disingenuous, have of the suckers buying organic food are still arguing it's more nutritious.

The "it's more nutritious" claim is often made here and elsewhere.

So sorry to you that it's been debunked.

[Luminous Animal]

85. You are the sucker for supposing that a

study conducted by an organization whose management is heavy with food manufacturers would come out with a unbiased report. Follow the link on post #79 to see what a real debunking looks like.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. lulz.

Debunking debunked.

You're going to have to do better than that.

[iris27]

78. Disagreeing with the way it's being presented, not challenging the finding.

More vitamin C in an organic grapefruit vs. non-organic? Of course not.

Less toxic residues? YES - and this is never mentioned in the articles reporting this study.

[kpete]

46. lol

and a hahaha

nonsense,
kp

[Onceuponalife]

50. Agree with OP

There is no evidence. Progressives have a disturbing habit of jumping on bandwagons because it sounds good. Until the evidence is there I see no reason to care about an "organic" label on food.

[Odin2005]

53. This thread proves that many DUers are are stupid and illogical as the Freepers.

"The article is BS because I don't like what it says" :crazy:

[X_Digger]

56. Agreed..

The left has just as many 'common sense' beliefs that don't stand up to scrutiny as the right does.

[Odin2005]

57. I hate the term "common sense".

The term just means "the current baseless prejudices of the day". That the Earth is the center of the Universe used to be "common sense", as was many racist and misogynistic notions.

Then I again, My Asperger's Syndrome makes me have no "common sense". :rofl:

[paulsby]

67. i've made this point many times. leftists have just as many prejudices are righties

it's just a matter of what the prejudices are.

it is a religious viewpoint that organics are all light and good and corporate farming is evil.

therefore, no amount of evidence will overcome this religious belief.

arguing such things is like arguing evolutionary evidence with a creationist.

no political ideology is immune from cognitive dissonance.

fwiw, i readily agree that animals that eat their natural diet (iow the one they evolved to eat) are generally healthier and tastier. this has nothing to do with organics.

iow, farm raised salmon is less nutritious than "real" salmon. why? because farm raised salmon doesn't eat krill, etc. and thus doesn't get the superior EFA profile.

that's science.

the idea that organics are nutritionally superior to non-organics, otoh, is ANTI-scientific.

ANYbody who thinks that any political ideology is LESS dependant on prejudice, bias, religious (iow faith before science) beliefs, etc. than another falls into the trap imo.

[DCKit]

70. That's patently unfair and rude to boot.

Chemical analysis has shown our commercially grown food has a 40% deficiency of vitamins and minerals when compared to commercially grown (no, not even "organic") produce from only 50 years ago. To what would you attribute that change, if not mechanized/chemical agriculture and the ongoing depletion of our soils?

I make compost at home and grow vegetables in pots. When using potting soils and chemical fertilizers, the soil was good for a year, then became little more than sand, silt and mica - heavy, compacted and almost impervious to water, and I am surrounded by people who throw away their worthless potting soil every year. Unsurprisingly, I don't have any insect infestations or plant diseases worth noting, either. Stronger, healthier plants also have a far greater ability to fight off whatever ails them.

You may also be interested to know that the GM crops have been found to have 15% lower productivity, in spite of their being engineered to make them immune to insect infestation (BT corn and soybeans) or "round-up ready" to allow them to out-compete weeds. That they're all hybrids and farmers can't save the seeds for replanting - not to mention Monsanto's ongoing campaign against those farmers whose heritage crops they have contaminated with GM genetic material or that those crops with BT genes (both corn and soybeans) seem to be causing all kinds of problems with allergic and digestive problems - and I'd rather be doing it my way.

Further, the widespread cases of food contamination are all from factory farms, even if that's not what we've been told. The complete lack of oversight and ability to competently investigate by the government reeks of a cover-up. The FDA is owned by the people they're supposed to be regulating - the same people who supply food to every supermarket in the U.S.. Thanks, but no thanks.

I realize I'm not a scientist, but I've got fifteen years of experimentation under my belt and grow some of the best tomatoes and peppers I've ever tasted, each and every year. The food at the grocery store may as well be made of cellulose, water and food coloring by comparison. There's just nothing in it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. It's not unfair. Rude? Too fucking bad.

" Chemical analysis has shown our commercially grown food has a 40% deficiency of vitamins and minerals when compared to commercially grown (no, not even "organic") produce from only 50 years ago. To what would you attribute that change, if not mechanized/chemical agriculture and the ongoing depletion of our soils?"

According to this latest review, that's untrue. You're probably referencing that Newcastle study that was never published, and never peer-reviewed.

"You may also be interested to know that the GM crops have been found to have 15% lower productivity, in spite of their being engineered to make them immune to insect infestation (BT corn and soybeans) or "round-up ready" to allow them to out-compete weeds."

If this were true, farmers wouldn't be clamoring to plant them.

[DCKit]

97. "If this were true, farmers wouldn't be clamoring to plant them."

Now that's hysterical. Until you consider the number of farmers who have been killed during protests against Frankenseed, the ones ruined in legal battles with Monsanto over pollution of their heritage seeds by MonSatan's GM pollen, or the fact that the heritage strains of corn in the farthest reaches of Mexico are already polluted with BT genes from drift.

I'll have to agree to disagree with you here. As the poster described it, I guess there are unreasonable fundamentalists on both sides of the argument. It's a waste of time to try to change a fossilized mind so you eat what you eat, and I'll try to do better.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. So why are thousands of farmers buying GM crops?

Why do you think it's all over the place?

Who do you think's buying it? Plumbers? Electricians?

[Sebastian Doyle]

108. Your employer has deep pockets

Mostly because of federal subsidies, unfortunately.

Some farmers would rather sell out to MonSatan than lose their farms and starve.

[yellowcanine]

99. "Chemical analysis has shown...." Please provide a link to support that statement.

When you make such a definitive statement it is worthless without a credible source.


Roundup ready soybeans are not hybrids. The seeds could be used to produce more soybeans but Monsanto requires all farmers buying RR soybeans to sign a "technology agreement" stating that they will not save the seed for planting.

Nearly all commercial corn varieties are hybrids and have been so since the 1940s.

I would like to see a source for your 15% lower yield claim as well for GM crops. I take that to mean 15% average yield reduction for all GM crops vs their conventional bred variety counterparts. In other words, comparing Variety "Wonderful" with Variety GM "Wonderful." I don't think such a study has been done, prove me wrong.

The e coli tainted spinach a couple of years back was from a certified organic farm in California. - I guess it depends on what you mean by "factory farm".

Homegrown produce will nearly always taste better than supermarket produce OR farm stand produce for that matter. Its fresher and it can be allowed to ripen fully because it doesn't have to be shipped anywhere.

[LWolf]

79. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6198566

[BlooInBloo]

89. Heh. Good times for the bourgeois sanctimonious organic-eaters....

I always enjoy it when they say things like "I just **KNOW** it's healthier!" (usually just before taking their ball and going home.

:rofl: