Now if they could better prove the value of antioxidants.....
Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
131–140 of 208 posts
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#132Earlier 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
It is as though words in human language can have multiple meanings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chemical
> 1. any substance used in or resulting from a reaction involving changes to atoms or molecules, especially one derived artificially for practical use
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#133Earlier 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? I concur, who are these hidden giants?
I'm not sure they are exactly hidden. I'd consider them household names. BASF and Bayer are larger, Dow and DuPont are roughly the same same size as Monsanto, and Sysgenta is slightly smaller. In hindsight, it would have probably been better to say that Monsanto is a medium sized business, relatively speaking, in that agriculture space.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#134The 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…
I thought it was defined as "no use of pesticides". Other stuff is often included like fertilizers or genetic modification, but I don't see how that is relevant.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sugar is a very tasty plant.
Did you fall for the anti-sugar campaign? There's nothing wrong with sugar in reasonable quantity.
That is correct, if by "reasonable quantity" you mean, "not adding any to your diet that already has plenty of fruit and vegetables."
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#136And 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...
2012 was a long time ago. Seriously. Would you use un-patched software from 2.5 years ago? I wouldn't. Science can move fast too. Relying on old data is foolish when there's a lot more newer data that can be analyzed.
The newer data shows the same feeble trend as before. A little plus, a little minus. Press releases notwishstanding the signal has been weak and remains weak. Best to avoid confirmation bias here.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Sometim…
> 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.
Well, if we're going to be fair about it, the fact that it washes off the surface of plants so easily doesn't mean it's just gone and not causing residual effects elsewhere.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Selective breeding is a comparatively slow and safe process. You're altering a species within its own parameters. It has little resemblance to the frankensteining we're doing right now. I'm not against it, I'm just not sure we've a developed a proper test suite to secure the process.
Selective breeding has allowed humans to transform wolves into Chihuahuas, an inedible wild grass called Teosinte into Corn (Maize), and many other drastic modifications. But those aren't "frankensteining", apparently. To paraphrase Stewart Brand, inserting the DNA to express a protein that a mammal cell normally does into a plant cell does not mean it will be furry.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#139Earlier 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…
> GMO is a similar issue. If genetic modification is done in a lab it's labeled GMO and bad, if it's done through breeding it's not and ok. This is actually worse than you present it, because the "GMO" label is not applied to variously laboratory techniques like repeated exposure to mutagens followed by detailed analysis to determine which subjects have mutations of interest, followed by selective breeding, more expo…
I very much agree. The black / white, organic / not organic and GMO / not GMO is a non-useful abstraction IMO and instead misleads and confuses.
The following paper describes the problem in detail regarding GMO classification: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC510...
Some relevant quotes:
"Examination of the exact language of the excluded methods definition at 7 CFR 205.2 will bring out the key issues.
1. A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. The phrase “not possible under natural conditions or processes” has become problematic in the context of “traditional” breeding methods that involve disruption of normal plant cell growth. For example, mutagenesis can be a process in which chemical or radiation stress is applied on a cell to force mutation to happen, but it also commonly occurs in nature and at least some of the mutagenesis chemicals are derived from nature. (More on mutagenesis under 5. traditional breeding). The concept of "natural" is not defined in any regulations and is very blurred after centuries of humans manipulating the environment and plants, animals and microbes."
And:
"5. traditional breeding,
This term is assumed to include breeding methods that have been used prior to the emergence of transgenic technologies. It is not clear at which point traditional breeding techniques are divided from modern or non-traditional breeding techniques. Is there a time point at which all techniques before that time are considered traditional and all new techniques developed after that time are not considered traditional? The use of transposons (see below Part B) since the 1930's or chemical, physical, and biological mutagens since the 1940's are blurring the distinction between traditional breeding and biotechnology."
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Sometim…
> 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. Well, if we're going to be fair about it, the fact that it washes off the surface of plants so easily doesn't mean it's just gone and not causing residual effects elsewhere .
> doesn't mean it's just gone and not causing residual effects elsewhere
True, but I have better things to worry about than this health food craze americans seem to be going through. I've been living here for several months and I honestly think most people here are insane. So much worrying about everything! Live a little, sheesh.[1]
Maybe SF is especially bad.
In my country we have a saying: "You keep the nice apples for yourself, you sell the rotten ones to city slickers as organic."
[1] my main gripe with the organic anti-chemical food craze is that we simply don't have enough arable land to feed everyone if we stop using GMO's and pesticides and all that stuff. We were actually supposed to all have been starving by some 20 years ago, but then we invented cool things. But I guess we can always get rid of all the rainforests to compensate and we're all gonna be so super healthy and chemical free. Hoofuckingray.