Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#31

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 4:32 PM UTC

mark_l_watson wrote: post #13

I am generally pleased with the good availability of locally grown organic food where we live in the mountains of Central Arizona. If people don't want organic food, I could generally care less except for one thing: efforts to put legal roadblocks in the way of locally grown food. For example: A few years ago our Senator Jon Kyle, after taking large campaign contributions from Monsanto, submitted the American Food Sa…

Could you explain what you mean by home gardeners and how you think this proposed bill would have affected them? I don't think the average Senator is foolish enough to try to ban (or substantially regulate) backyard gardening.

Similar legislation was enacted btw:

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

But it had some provisions excluding smaller operations from federal oversight.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#32

Post by mark_l_watson » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 4:32 PM UTC

jqm wrote: post #24

mark_l_watson wrote: post #13

I am generally pleased with the good availability of locally grown organic food where we live in the mountains of Central Arizona. If people don't want organic food, I could generally care less except for one thing: efforts to put legal roadblocks in the way of locally grown food. For example: A few years ago our Senator Jon Kyle, after taking large campaign contributions from Monsanto, submitted the American Food Sa…

The common line is that this bill is to stymie small farmers and promote Monsanto. I don't think it was the intent of the bill at all, nor does it need to be the outcome. Food born illness is a serious problem (~48 million people will have some form of it in the US this year). Just look at the articles on people who are fatally poisoned by things like greens and cantaloupe. The act attempts to address this by making…

I don't view the Bill as a "conspiracy," just a large corporation trying to increase profits.

You make good points on food safety, definitely important, but I personally feel more secure buying food from the same local farmers every week or so at our local farmers markets than food that is grown on huge farms and shipped from long distances.

I have the same opinion about meat. I would rather buy locally grown free range chicken from small local farms than chicken grown in small cages living in their own poop.

All that said, we are supposed to be a free country, so I feel like it is important to maintain the rights of both people like you who prefer food from large grocery stores, and also people like me who like my food raised by very nearby local small farmers. Really, why shouldn't we both get what we want?

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#33

Post by bitwize » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 4:33 PM UTC

SigmundA wrote: post #11

The problem with the term "organic" is it's broad and not well defined. It's like "agile" in our space. There are some standards varying by country some government enforced some not, and those standards have changed over time. This data seems to encompass data from many countries over a long period of time. This means how something is classified in the organic bin or not in highly inconsistent in the data set. The pa…

"Organic" in the sense of agriculture is very well-defined; it means using only mechanical processes and biological processes found in nature (e.g., artificial selection). No chemicals or genetic tampering are allowed: no pesticides, no fertilizers, no GMOs. Where the vagueness creeps in is when governments attempt to gerrymander the definition of organic so that e.g., Monsanto GMO crops can be classified as "organic" when they're not.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#34

Post by stefantalpalaru » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 4:33 PM UTC

hausen wrote: post #28

wirrbel wrote: post #20

Again quite a poor press release for a university. * Antioxidants have lost a lot in recent studies in terms of supposed health benefits. Mentioning antioxidants without reference to today's antioxidants and health research is implying a not-proven health benefit of organic food for antioxidants, while the health benefit can only soundly be expressed for the lower levels of pollutants. * There is no link to the paper…

Not only it is a poor press release, but it has FALSE information. "The study, published today in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition..." The study, entitled “Higher antioxidant concentrations and less cadmium and pesticide residues in organically-grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses,” is nowhere to be found, either on the BJN website, or elsewhere on the web. Until the peer-reviewed…

http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_20...

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#35

Post by baldfat » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 4:36 PM UTC

baldfat wrote: post #25

Scary! "is based on data from 343 peer-reviewed publications" Have we not learned that "peer-reviewed publications" are of questionable value due to the on going debate on peer-reviews. http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/scibytes/the_debate_abou... http://time.com/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scienti...

That is why there needs to be more backing then what was published in the letter. The whole backing of data was that it was peer-reviewed.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#36

Post by mark_l_watson » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 4:38 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #31

mark_l_watson wrote: post #13

I am generally pleased with the good availability of locally grown organic food where we live in the mountains of Central Arizona. If people don't want organic food, I could generally care less except for one thing: efforts to put legal roadblocks in the way of locally grown food. For example: A few years ago our Senator Jon Kyle, after taking large campaign contributions from Monsanto, submitted the American Food Sa…

Could you explain what you mean by home gardeners and how you think this proposed bill would have affected them? I don't think the average Senator is foolish enough to try to ban (or substantially regulate) backyard gardening. Similar legislation was enacted btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA_Food_Safety_Modernization_A... But it had some provisions excluding smaller operations from federal oversight.

The second bill was better than the first.

My senator, Jon Kyle, has a history of supported nutty bills, BTW.

When George W. Bush was president, he proposed a bill that would create a small national committee that would have the power to have any university professor fired because of their political views. Being a senator does not guarantee rational behavior :-) when I wrote to my Senator about this Bill, his response was very unsatisfactory in my opinion, but now that a democrat is president, I doubt he would like an Obama appointed committee to have the same powers!

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#37

Post by oldmanjay » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 4:39 PM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #33

SigmundA wrote: post #11

The problem with the term "organic" is it's broad and not well defined. It's like "agile" in our space. There are some standards varying by country some government enforced some not, and those standards have changed over time. This data seems to encompass data from many countries over a long period of time. This means how something is classified in the organic bin or not in highly inconsistent in the data set. The pa…

"Organic" in the sense of agriculture is very well-defined; it means using only mechanical processes and biological processes found in nature (e.g., artificial selection). No chemicals or genetic tampering are allowed: no pesticides, no fertilizers, no GMOs. Where the vagueness creeps in is when governments attempt to gerrymander the definition of organic so that e.g., Monsanto GMO crops can be classified as "organic…

See, when you say stuff like "no chemicals or genetic tampering are allowed" you exclude literally everything man has eaten EVER.

I don't really care if people want to consume so-called "organic" food but the pseudo-scientific conversation surrounding it makes me cringe.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#38

Post by mparr4 » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 4:40 PM UTC

jqm wrote: post #24

mark_l_watson wrote: post #13

I am generally pleased with the good availability of locally grown organic food where we live in the mountains of Central Arizona. If people don't want organic food, I could generally care less except for one thing: efforts to put legal roadblocks in the way of locally grown food. For example: A few years ago our Senator Jon Kyle, after taking large campaign contributions from Monsanto, submitted the American Food Sa…

The common line is that this bill is to stymie small farmers and promote Monsanto. I don't think it was the intent of the bill at all, nor does it need to be the outcome. Food born illness is a serious problem (~48 million people will have some form of it in the US this year). Just look at the articles on people who are fatally poisoned by things like greens and cantaloupe. The act attempts to address this by making…

I think it's neither a conspiracy nor a reasonable precaution.

Food borne illnesses are, in fact, a serious problem but regulations that crush the small farmer aren't the answer. Large scale farming may be incredibly efficient at producing food but they are equally efficient at propagating food borne illnesses.

Promoting small farms when possible is beneficial to society and the planet for a host of reasons, including the reduction of food borne illnesses. Nature abhors monoculture and always fights to restore ecological diversity.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#39

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 4:43 PM UTC

mark_l_watson wrote: post #36

maxerickson wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain what you mean by home gardeners and how you think this proposed bill would have affected them? I don't think the average Senator is foolish enough to try to ban (or substantially regulate) backyard gardening. Similar legislation was enacted btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA_Food_Safety_Modernization_A... But it had some provisions excluding smaller operations from federal oversight.

The second bill was better than the first. My senator, Jon Kyle, has a history of supported nutty bills, BTW. When George W. Bush was president, he proposed a bill that would create a small national committee that would have the power to have any university professor fired because of their political views. Being a senator does not guarantee rational behavior :-) when I wrote to my Senator about this Bill, his respons…

I was more interested in your answer to the first question than the aside about how we each expect senators to behave.

It'd also like more information about the university professors, I either didn't notice at the time or completely forgot about it.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#40

Post by jheriko » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 4:43 PM UTC

i wish we could see a balanced analysis of this...

there are many, many advantages to 'modern' food production - this is why we did it to begin with. the economic advantages may cause the problem where the quality of the food drops in some ways but other advantages potentially balance it out.

it also seems to be a bit arbitrary as well... the 'artificial processes' used to improve food quality are often used on 'organic' foods as well. especially when they 'just' make the product better.