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]

#121

Post by WildUtah » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 8:45 PM UTC

Blahah wrote: post #55

rdtsc wrote: post #47

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.

Everything is a chemical, and organic farming in particular

Everything is a chemical? [0] How about outer space, warmth, love, freedom, sunshine, and rainbows?

[0] http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3324

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

#122

Post by judk » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 8:46 PM UTC

SigmundA wrote: post #48

morsch wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Arbitrary choice in the face of uncertainty isn't wrong though; it is an aprroxumation technique.

"Room temperature" is arbitrary, but 75F is better than 100F or 0F

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

#123

Post by jqm » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 8:49 PM UTC

judk wrote: post #113

mparr4 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I'm not sure that is the reason they won't use the restrooms nor that we are actually hearing the specifics of the rule nor the reason for it or if it is anything more than internet rumor (wouldn't be surprised).

People like Michael Pollan are ideologues (a good writer...I have read "Botany of Desire") but you have to take some of their views, particularly on science, with a grain of salt. Something like Micheal Moore. Not that he isn't often right but...... then there is reality.

And (to reply to a parent) I don't understand how insisting on and legislating sanitary food production, record keeping and food tracking has anything to do with mono culture and isn't a reasonable precaution.

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

#124

Post by dgesang » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 8:51 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #100

dgesang wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll just go ahead and leave this here for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Well, I didn't say that anything nature-related is ought to be good and desirable. What I meant is that 'conventional food' yet has to be proven to be equally safe as food that was not genetically tampered with, grown without using pesticides, etc. pp.

And quite honestly, I doubt that Moore had genetic engineering and todays massive (ab)use of pesticides in mind when he first stated that law. He might even have added an exception ...

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

#125

Post by judk » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 8:52 PM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #53

dekhn wrote: post #10

Like the article says, the authors didn't claim the differences they found actually have any impact on health. They just claim they measured a difference, and the difference was significant (unlikely to be explained by chance). That's fine, but this really doesn't inform consumer decision making in a valuable way. Many consumers would hear this and immediately assume that consuming organic food is safer, which isn't…

Science: clearly doesn't matter unless it informs consumer decision-making in a valuable way.

Data without context is low information content. Your snark is misplaced.

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

#126

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 8:59 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #44

hueving wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 incide…

[deleted]

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

#127

Post by dingdingdang » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 9:09 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #110

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…

> 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?

I concur, who are these hidden giants?

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

#128

Post by Swizec » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 9:13 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #116

rdtsc wrote: post #47

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…

> 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…

He means "They use pesticides responsibly but I am passionate about hating pesticides"

My gramps had a vinyard and an orchard. Pesticides are a bitch to use. Windy the next day? A bit of rain? Dew too strong? Well screw you buddy, you get to re-do everything because it's as if you didn't spray at all. Ha ha.

And those stupid grapes wouldn't even grow without pesticides. They're so bloody fragile and finnicky. Sometimes the whole thing would go belly-up because gramps would miss the spraying window by a few days (due to weather).

Seriously, anyone who is passionately against pesticides has never tried to make money off of food production. And anyone who's worried about pesticides having residual effects on them (and doesn't get in direct contact with the stuff) has never tried to make pesticides stay on those god damned plants long enough to work.

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

#129

Post by sleep-less » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 9:13 PM UTC

judk wrote: post #114

kaitai wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you fall for the anti-sugar campaign? There's nothing wrong with sugar in reasonable quantity.

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

#130

Post by Swizec » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 9:16 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #98

Blahah wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Vinegar is a herbicide.

Concentrated urine as well.