91–100 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely that's the null hypothesis? It's up to proponents of organic food to prove a benefit.
Ha, yeah sure, we need to proof that natures goods are fine the way they are supposed to be, but highly manipulated goods don't. That kind of thinking is one of the reasons why so many people fear TTIP. Please stay on your side of the Atlantic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm still not convinced that organic is nutritionally superior or has levels of pesticides that prove harmful to humans. I'm curious what convinced you that they are equally healthy in the first place?
Surely that's the null hypothesis? It's up to proponents of organic food to prove a benefit.
"Organic" food is what we've eaten since the beginning of time. It'd make sense that you'd have to show that the alteration you're introducing to the natural state of affairs isn't detrimental to health of the consumer. I.e., I'm making the same argument as you, I just consider unaltered food to be the baseline.
Also, "organic" is a weird name. Organic as opposed to what? Bananas made out of mineral oil?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely that's the null hypothesis? It's up to proponents of organic food to prove a benefit.
Weird thinking. While I agree that it's a sensible null hypothesis, I'm not sure I agree that the burden of evidence automatically should be on proponents of organic food. "Organic" food is what we've eaten since the beginning of time. It'd make sense that you'd have to show that the alteration you're introducing to the natural state of affairs isn't detrimental to health of the consumer. I.e., I'm making the same ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely that's the null hypothesis? It's up to proponents of organic food to prove a benefit.
(responding to @dgesang here, because of max comment depth) The conventionally-grown food looks similar, tastes similar, and people have been eating it for decades with no major, obvious consequences. So at first glance they are equivalent. So it seems reasonable that the burden would be on proving a difference, rather than an equivalence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm still not convinced that organic is nutritionally superior or has levels of pesticides that prove harmful to humans. I'm curious what convinced you that they are equally healthy in the first place?
Surely that's the null hypothesis? It's up to proponents of organic food to prove a benefit.
I'd rather be in the control group for this loosely organized experiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely that's the null hypothesis? It's up to proponents of organic food to prove a benefit.
Weird thinking. While I agree that it's a sensible null hypothesis, I'm not sure I agree that the burden of evidence automatically should be on proponents of organic food. "Organic" food is what we've eaten since the beginning of time. It'd make sense that you'd have to show that the alteration you're introducing to the natural state of affairs isn't detrimental to health of the consumer. I.e., I'm making the same ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely that's the null hypothesis? It's up to proponents of organic food to prove a benefit.
(responding to @dgesang here, because of max comment depth) The conventionally-grown food looks similar, tastes similar, and people have been eating it for decades with no major, obvious consequences. So at first glance they are equivalent. So it seems reasonable that the burden would be on proving a difference, rather than an equivalence.
Conventionally-grown food looks like organically grown food on steroids, to me. I suppose from the outside a human on steroid may look healthy -- Mr Universe, even -- but we know all is not well inside.
I'm not saying that's really related, but there is substantial evidence for real differences in the makeup of food grown conventionally vs organically.
Citations 10-15 in the paper the original article pertain to this - protein expression differences across fertilization types.
Quantitative proteomics to study the response of wheat to contrasting fertilisation regimes - http://vwordpress.stmarys-ca.edu/bdf2/files/2013/05/wheat-an...
"... The abundance of 111 protein spots varied significantly between fertilisation regimes. Flag leaf N and P composition were significant drivers of differences in protein spot abundance, including major proteins involved in nitrogen remobilisation, photosynthesis, metabolism and stress response."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 whe…
People in this thread seem to be under the misapprehension that organic farming doesn't use pesticides or 'chemicals'. Everything is a chemical, and organic farming in particular uses some nasty ones (rotenone, copper sulfate, pyrethrins). Pesticides are not automatically bad - in fact some of them are almost unbelievably benign to humans and/or to the environment.
I'm curious to know which pesticides fit this description.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely that's the null hypothesis? It's up to proponents of organic food to prove a benefit.
Weird thinking. While I agree that it's a sensible null hypothesis, I'm not sure I agree that the burden of evidence automatically should be on proponents of organic food. "Organic" food is what we've eaten since the beginning of time. It'd make sense that you'd have to show that the alteration you're introducing to the natural state of affairs isn't detrimental to health of the consumer. I.e., I'm making the same ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely that's the null hypothesis? It's up to proponents of organic food to prove a benefit.
Ha, yeah sure, we need to proof that natures goods are fine the way they are supposed to be, but highly manipulated goods don't. That kind of thinking is one of the reasons why so many people fear TTIP. Please stay on your side of the Atlantic.