Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

csanr.wsu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 208 posts

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

#41

Post by hueving »

mparr4 wrote: post #38
jqm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, includin…

What you said is nonsensical. How would eliminating the enforcement of cleanliness standards reduce illness?

It's like advocating that food trucks shouldn't be subject to health inspections and then saying we would all be healthier eating from this food trucks instead of restaurants.

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

#42

Post by Scitr »

jeremyw wrote: post #17

And a 2012 survey of 200+ studies showed no significant difference in nutrition or contaminants. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685 http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/healthcare-triag...

http://scitr.com/a2f

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

#43

Post by mparr4 »

mparr4 wrote: post #38
jqm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, includin…

>What you said is nonsensical. How would eliminating the enforcement of cleanliness standards reduce illness?

I didn't say that eliminating the enforcement of cleanliness standards would reduce illness, rather I said crushing the small farmer isn't the answer and suggested that more small farms would reduce illness.

Example (from Michael Pollan's excellent book "The Omnivore's Dilemna"): FDA regulations that require slaughterhouses to have a private restroom reserved for the FDA inspector.

For a large multinational corporation processing tons of meat per day, that is a drop in the bucket. For a small slaughterhouse processing maybe a handful of cattle/week during peak slaughtering season, that's a much more substantial cost.

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

#44

Post by graeme »

hueving wrote: post #41
mparr4 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, includin…

What you said is nonsensical. How would eliminating the enforcement of cleanliness standards reduce illness? It's like advocating that food trucks shouldn't be subject to health inspections and then saying we would all be healthier eating from this food trucks instead of restaurants.

>What you said is nonsensical. How would eliminating the enforcement of cleanliness standards reduce illness?

The idea is that industrial agriculture is far more likely to produce illness. So industrial agriculture + regulations can have a higher likelihood of producing illness than small agriculture without regulation.

And since regulations stifle small farms, lower regulations on small farms can decrease the incidence of food borne illness by decreasing the percentage of food that comes from industrial agriculture.

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

#45

Post by toufka »

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…

You do realize water is a chemical? And sunlight is probably the largest 'genetic tamperer' around? There is so much grey space between what you think you mean, and what you are actually saying that the terms you use are entirely meaningless at a practical level.

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

#47

Post by rdtsc »

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…

> 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.

How do you know that locally grown food is organic unless someone checks? Local grown and sold food doesn't necessarily mean "organic" it just means locally grown. Pesticides and chemicals are available for local growers too.

Unless you grow it or personally know where, who and how they grow the food you will not know what are you getting.

A lot of "farmers" I know (not in this country but in a country with a non-functioning FDA or USDA) have 2 lots. One lot to grow the food to sell and one to grow for themselves. The pesticide the shit out of one they sell. Nobody checks. Still looks good and pretty and people buy it and sellers make money.

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

#48

Post by SigmundA »

morsch wrote: post #30
SigmundA wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course my point is this this paper is vague since it doesn't specify which country/entities formal definition of organic they followed in order to classify the data. My point of varying and changing regulation stands as well, the EU original regulation went into effect in 1993, however I am not clear on what enforcement in which countries actually occurred when. It seems it had major revisions in 2007 and took som…

Arbitrary is a big word. Just because the line regarding fertilisers isn't drawn the way you imagine it would be doesn't make it arbitrary. I'm sure a lot of rational thought went into, balancing the various trade-offs involved in making a regulation that's meant to serve as a minimum standard applicable in a market with 300 million residents. The same goes for GMO stuff, it's your prerogative to redefine words in an…

No I'm using the specific definition of arbitrary: "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something"

My point point being there is not intrinsic nature of something that can make it "organic" in the organic food definition. If one pesticide is allowed in the US and not int the EU definition of organic that is arbitrary.

So when someone says GMO it assumed to be what exactly? Targeted gene inertion? Mutagenesis? What about marker assisted breeding? Each one of these is a continuum of progression from "conventional" breeding. All of them are human induced genetic modification, drawing the line at targeted gene insertion is arbitrary.

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

#50

Post by alrs »

How well paid are the people who jump in to these threads to astroturf on behalf on a lobby? Are they on-call to deal with weekend work?

Is it the same players that have been doing this since the 80s, or is there someone disrupting the industry?

Post reply on HN