Url changed from http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/new-stu..., because several commenters were complaining about there being no link to the paper.
We had to compress the title to fit.
Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
111–120 of 208 posts
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I'm aware that small growers often want to sell produce. But "small local growers" were explicitly mentioned, hence the question. "Some home gardeners end up being small local growers" is sort of an answer, but why mention them both if you are only talking about the situation where "home gardener" is (at least becoming) a stretch?
I think we're having a rural/city dweller divide. I wouldn't consider anyone even a small grower unless they make their main living doing it but lots of people sell a few things to make ends meet.
No, I don't think so.
I was mostly curious if mark_l_watson meant to include people growing for their own table or not. The expected impact on people growing to sell small amounts is also interesting. Figuring out what we each would have called the various possible delineations prior to the discussion is not very interesting.
(I would think the big impacts would be things like requiring people to disclose that they were reselling something, which I see as a positive for the buyer, without being particularly onerous)
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#113Earlier 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? 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…
And when you think about it, you realize that this bizarre rules is a statement that FDA inspectors believe farm operations are so unsanitary across the board that they refuse to use a standard farm restroom. That tells me all I need to know about the quality of USA factory farms.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#114Isn't this directly at odds with the Stanford study from 2012? - http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidenc... "No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinic…
The Stanford study also found significant differences between organic and non-organic in pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria (in chicken & pork). I don't understand why these are considered to be unrelated to health in press releases like the one you linked. As they say, "the clinical significance of this is unclear", but I think that's because we haven't studied it. If you buy only the tastiest plant…
Sugar is a very tasty plant.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#115I haven't read the specific paper, but the press release skips over the finer nuances in the debate. First, how is the European standard of "organic" defined exactly? Both the UK's and US' seem to cover the basics (no growth hormones, limited herbicides and pesticides use, must feed the animal organic foods, etc.), but fertility and biological standards in the soil might vary. It is possible that that UK might have n…
Why is the difference between US and UK regulations important for the results? As far as I understood from the press release the study was conducted in the UK with UK products.
Because "organic" is a meaningless label in USA, so USA "organic" is like the rest of USA produce.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#116I 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 whe…
> The pesticide the shit out of one they sell.
As a farmer myself, I find something intriguing in your comment. I take away visions of someone using way more chemical than necessary when reading this, but that stuff is expensive. There is no reason to use more. It's always considered a blessing when you don't have to use any, even if we assume the environmental/health impact is zero. Judicious use of pesticides can improve plant health and increase yields, but that happens in every country.
I guess I'm curious about what you are trying to say? A those "farmers" you referred to really that reckless with their incomes (never mind anything else that goes along with it) in a business that has incredibly slim margins?
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#117I 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…
> American Food Safety bill that was prepared by Monsanto Was it just Monsanto? They are a relatively small business of the businesses that deal in agriculture. I'd be surprised if the bigger companies would let them have free reign over the decision making process like that (though I'm sure they're happy to have Monsanto as the fall guy, so to speak). The only reference to the bill, with respect to who wrote it, tha…
Is there really bigger companies than Monsanto doing the same thing? If so, and the power/bullying that Monsanto has proven it holds, we need to be really scared. Because the financial needs to defeat Monsanto can bleed even a State dry, so if they are just a front of whats to come, how could we win? I would love to hear more on these other companies and organizations.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#118On a general note, how do meta analyses handle publication biases? For example, this study used 343 studies to derive their conclusions. But what if there were 5000 studies which showed that organic and non-organic food have no differences, but were not published or peer reviewed because they were deemed "not interesting"?
Generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias#Effect_on_met...
From the paper:
> Funnel plots, Egger tests of funnel plot asymmetry and fail-safe number tests were used to assess publication bias (37) (see online supplementary Table S13 for further information).
(Some fail-safe tests are completely worthless and misleading, but I haven't looked to see which they used.)
> Strong or moderate funnel plot asymmetry consistent with a publication bias was detected for approximately half of the parameters. However, it is not possible to definitively attribute discrepancies between large precise studies and small imprecise studies to publication bias, which remains strongly suspected rather than detected where asymmetry is severe (see Table 1 and online supplementary Table S13).
There's a table of all the endpoints they looked at, like the various antioxidants, with a column grading none to high:
> Publication bias was assessed using visual inspection of funnel plots, Egger tests, two fail-safe number tests, and trim and fill (see online supplementary Table S13). Overall publication bias was considered high when indicated by two or more methods, moderate when indicated by one method, and low when indicated by none of the methods. The overall quality of evidence was then assessed across domains as in standard GRADE appraisal.
A copy-paste of the publication bias column and then a `xclip -o | sort | uniq -c` says that there were 16 parameters where publication bias was estimated to be low or 'none', 17 'medium', and 3 'strong'. That said, publication bias tests are considered to be fairly weak in that you need a lot of studies to be confident bias isn't there, and looking at figure 3, the # of studies for the parameters may vary from what looks like a low of 4 to a high of 332; so the publication bias estimate for the latter will probably be good, but the former means next to nothing.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
> American Food Safety bill that was prepared by Monsanto Was it just Monsanto? They are a relatively small business of the businesses that deal in agriculture. I'd be surprised if the bigger companies would let them have free reign over the decision making process like that (though I'm sure they're happy to have Monsanto as the fall guy, so to speak). The only reference to the bill, with respect to who wrote it, tha…
Is there really bigger companies than Monsanto doing the same thing? If so, and the power/bullying that Monsanto has proven it holds, we need to be really scared. Because the financial needs to defeat Monsanto can bleed even a State dry, so if they are just a front of whats to come, how could we win? I would love to hear more on these other companies and organizations.
What do you mean by same thing? Monsanto has hands in many things, including software development. If you mean GMOs, which they have have become infamous for, then absolutely. Bayer, for instance, is significantly larger.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are "hidden incentives" in virtually every study, and one should always remain highly skeptical. One of the biggest perversions of science is the probability of wide publication (essentially the virality of a finding), vastly increasing the likelihood of finding the desired outcome. However to your "business's dream", organic products are more expensive to buy because they're much more expensive to produce. If…
Businesses don't do everything possible to minimize absolute production costs, they try to minimize relative production costs. All else being equal, if my business and all my competitors are forced to pay twice as much for components, we will all raise prices, we will probably keep similar margins, and we will all make more profit. "All else being equal" is the hard part but it's not too far from reality in some situ…
> if my business and all my competitors are forced to pay twice as much for components, we will all raise prices, we will probably keep similar margins
No, the organic food fight has always been about should we reap the (positive) economies of scale that are so abundant in agriculture? That's the cost structure of concern here and it only applies to one side - those currently taking advantage of those efficiencies. We were able to feed society with family farms, it just took 90% of the population to be farmers.