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

141–150 of 208 posts

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

#141

Post by SigmundA »

judk wrote: post #122
SigmundA wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Any taxonomy is arbitrary. Nature / The Universe does not seem to organize things into neat categories. These taxonomies can be useful but imperfect abstractions. However IMO the organic / non-organic classification is a non-useful and misleading abstraction unlike the term "room temperature".

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

#142

Post by Dylan16807 »

stillsut wrote: post #120
Dylan16807 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. W…

Nah, 'organic' food is still easily mass-produced with big machines, you just avoid certain untrendy things.

Especially since large farms can easily be more environmentally-friendly, mostly through fuel savings, and market the hell out of that.

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

#143

Post by dmckeon »

jqm wrote: post #123
judk wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Moor…

I could not find language supporting a "private restroom" requirement after about 30 minutes of Googling, but it appears that FDA meat processing regs may require full-time on-site inspectors.

Considering that slaughterhouses process the entire animal, and thus have to deal with whatever happens to be on the hooves or skin, or inside the viscera, it may be that a separate restroom is actually a method of reducing the risk of cross-contamination.

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm381526.htm#foods

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2001-title21-vol2/CFR-2...

http://www.ncagr.gov/meatpoultry/pdf/Facility%20Guidelines.p...

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

#144

Post by unclebucknasty »

Swizec wrote: post #130
unclebucknasty wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Thanks. That's an interesting response.

However, the statement in question was explicitly regarding pesticides, not herbicides. And, implicitly, the context is those pesticides which are in use at scale on non-organic crops.

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

#145

Post by morsch »

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…

It's not an individual preference, it's the result of a political process. There may be a continuum of genetic modifications, that doesn't mean it's unreasonable -- or even arbitrary, per the quoted definition -- to pick a point in that continuum and make rules and regulations based on that point.

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

#146

Post by rdtsc »

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…

> I take away visions of someone using way more chemical than necessary when reading this

The vision is spraying with the deadliest and sometimes illegal pesticides (DDT and other things).

The "shit of out" is comparing to "0 pesticides". That means plucking bugs by hand in the evening from potatoes, weeding by hand, watering by hand.

> Judicious use of pesticides can improve plant health and increase yields, but that happens in every country.

Nobody is arguing with that, but given that these particular people I know (friend of relatives and so on) don't have time or language skills to read scientific literature what "judicious" amounts are.

> A those "farmers" you referred to really that reckless with their incomes

That is usually seasonal they have other business. They are not reckless they are just capitalists. They are maximizing the profit. The vegetables that look bigger, shiner and of which they can have a greater yield will maximize their profit.

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

#147

Post by randomdata »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #144
Swizec wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vinegar is a herbicide. Concentrated urine as well.

Thanks. That's an interesting response. However, the statement in question was explicitly regarding pesticides, not herbicides. And, implicitly, the context is those pesticides which are in use at scale on non-organic crops.

Nicotine would classify as insecticide that, while perhaps not completely benign, is considered to have minimal impact on human health (smoking it notwithstanding). A synthetically derived form of nicotine is the primary insecticide in use these days, although it's incredible success with the insect population is starting to give us second thoughts about using it.

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

#148

Post by serf »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #138
fnordsensei wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I took 'frankensteining' to mean a rapid progression and skip over many states which would have been encountered via selective breeding.

To take your example, the wolf -> chihuahua would have been frankensteining had it been over the course of a singular or very small amount of generations.

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

#150

Post by Blahah »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #144
Swizec wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vinegar is a herbicide. Concentrated urine as well.

Thanks. That's an interesting response. However, the statement in question was explicitly regarding pesticides, not herbicides. And, implicitly, the context is those pesticides which are in use at scale on non-organic crops.

Herbicides are a sub-class of pesticides, so benign herbicides definitely count.
Post reply on HN