I would think we would be better at spotting sock puppets. "Expert reaction?" More like paid schill:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/funding/
Syngenta? Croplife? BASF?
Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study
11–20 of 52 posts
Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study
#12In their statements they all ignore the question of environmental impact, pesticides, worker health, etc, which are the strongest reason to buy organic (and not because the food has magical properties).
Exactly, for us the main reason to buy organic is we don't like the concentrated industrialized production of regular food. We care about sustainability, environmental impact, working conditions, treatment of animals, etc. A carrot is a carrot, it's the story behind the carrot that matters.
Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there's a decrease in both protein and fibre, what is there an increase of to compensate for it? There has to be "more" of something per unit of mass.
I don't know but "conventionally mass-produced" produces tend to be bigger and tasteless... that might have something to do with growers selecting them for the "wrong" trait (gene) [0]. Tomatoes being the best example; they are much better when bought at my local farmer's market (as opposed to buying them at Walmart). 0: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112648268/scientists-f...
Tomatoes are a terrible example. Ripe tomatoes damage very easily so tomatoes going to grocers are picked green and then reddened by exposing them to ethylene gas. This minimally affects flavor but causes the tomato to appear "ripe".
If buying from farmers (not distributors) at your farmers market then those tomatoes were most likely ripened in the field then picked rather than gassed which is why they taste much better.
Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study
#14this article is fucking trash
Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study
#15> The paper also reports a decrease in protein, nitrates and fibre in the organically grown crops, which may be undesirable, and which are maybe unsurprisingly not referred to by the authors in their advocacy of organically grown produce. Hmm. I think this is important, and something I certainly overlooked in the initial hype.
If there's a decrease in both protein and fibre, what is there an increase of to compensate for it? There has to be "more" of something per unit of mass.
Water would be my first guess.
Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study
#16Unfortunately, all the responses are pretty negative and feel selective. The responding authors always criticize details, sometimes even around implied intent rather than factual content, while carefully omitting core parts of the original paper's findings. For example, nobody even cares to agree that organic food has significantly lower pesticide residues, which I think is a pretty agreeable positive effect of organ…
The health benefits of Organics are often less about the process and more about the seeds. Heirloom tomatoes as an example tend to be smaller, and squishier, and more flavorful. The smaller means you can't produce as many per acre. The squishier means you lose more in shipping. The Tastier often accompanies more nutritious. The Pesticide issue is two fold. (same with herbicides) You could dust your plants with arseni…
> My secondary concern is that too many people think "all-natural" or "organic" means safe.
Too many? I have yet to meet a local-grown organic all-natural afficionado who wasn't convinced this means they are automagically eating healthy and safe produce [and possibly saving small underdog farmers' lives] to boot.
Very few people realise that most (or at least a lot) of the time organic and all-natural is just a marketing ploy.
Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study
#17Quick, somebody put together the app that does some Bayesian work to score people and their quotes, research, funding, etc. to show on a scale where their tendencies would be expected to be for a given next statement. Let's get META!!! on meta-analyses.
What's interesting is the turf battles going on over what I would say are details vs the "news you can use."
Industrial agra => :P tasting + less desirable enviro impact.
Alt agra => less offputting, better enviro impact, but big hand waving around potential to be capable of scale and affordable for current and future population.
I get a sense there's this looming dread of having to deal with someone saying, "We can't survive (or will have a bad time) as a species if we sit back and slurp big agra, but we can't realistically keep everyone around/afford it if we try to help everyone eat 'correctly/safely'."
If the organic path is the moral path, is it OK to allow food costs to increase substantially? Is it OK to disallow the big agra calories and nutrients which likely enable subsistence for those unable to fight over spots for their Teslas and Priuses at Whole Foods?
Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study
#18I would think we would be better at spotting sock puppets. "Expert reaction?" More like paid schill: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/funding/ Syngenta? Croplife? BASF?
Well, that list also includes the University of Newcastle (the same university that published the aforementioned study).
In addition to the University of Newcastle as a funder, there are also these:
University College London, University of Bristol, University of Cambridge, University of East Anglia, University of Oxford
And these -
Institute of Mental Health, Institute of Physics (IOP), Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), Institution of Civil Engineers, Institution of Engineering and Technology (The IET), Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE)
And many more like -
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), National Institute for Health Research, National Nuclear Laboratory, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Nature
Are they all shills too?
Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study
#19Of course a lot of the "experts" are on the payroll of big food corporations. It's difficult to have independent science in this day and age on matters where billions are at stake. There is of course bias on the other side as well (e.g ideological), but nothing trumps actual, solid, business interests as a bias.
And the experts are also on non profit and large research universities, including the university that published the study (University of Newcastle). What's your point?
Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
The health benefits of Organics are often less about the process and more about the seeds. Heirloom tomatoes as an example tend to be smaller, and squishier, and more flavorful. The smaller means you can't produce as many per acre. The squishier means you lose more in shipping. The Tastier often accompanies more nutritious. The Pesticide issue is two fold. (same with herbicides) You could dust your plants with arseni…
> My secondary concern is that too many people think "all-natural" or "organic" means safe. Too many? I have yet to meet a local-grown organic all-natural afficionado who wasn't convinced this means they are automagically eating healthy and safe produce [and possibly saving small underdog farmers' lives] to boot. Very few people realise that most (or at least a lot) of the time organic and all-natural is just a marke…
There are three types of people in the world: those that aren't convinced that organic is safer and eat traditional, those that are convinced but don't care/can't afford organic and eat traditional, and those that eat organic -- and are convinced.
That is, nobody eats organic that isn't convinced of its benefits -- why else would they opt for the more costly of the two?