Think organic food is better for you, animals, and the planet? Think again • Hacker News Board

Re: Think organic food is better for you, animals, and the planet? Think again

#31

Post by Xeoncross » Mon, May 14, 2018, 3:41 PM UTC

WalterSear wrote: post #30

Xeoncross wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Organic foods are an absence of herbicides, pesticides, and narcotics. It's not like you're choosing the lesser of two evils or something.

Just your assumption, unfortunately. > The pesticides that are allowed for organic food production are typically not manmade. They tend to have natural substances like soaps, lime sulfur and hydrogen peroxide as ingredients. Not all natural substances are allowed in organic agriculture; some chemicals like arsenic, strychnine and tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate) are prohibited. http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/organic.html

Um, there is no assumption here. I guess I could have clarified "Organic foods are an absence of many herbicides, pesticides, and narcotics."

Non-organic simply has them all.

Re: Think organic food is better for you, animals, and the planet? Think again

#32

Post by jeffrey_t_b » Mon, May 14, 2018, 5:33 PM UTC

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #24

Let's look at three of the things this article claims are "debunked": >Green tea - drunk in vast quantities it may cause a >condition called fluorosis, which can lead to brittle >bones and teeth No one is telling you drink Green tea in "vast quantities". Most recommend an 8oz cup a day, which is perfectly safe. >Kale - this so-called wonder food is goitrogenic, >meaning it contains substances (goitrogens) that may >c…

That stuff _is_ ridiculous. I don't know if the human bladder is sized for that level of tea.

On the other hand, it looks like an infographic-style addition, added by the newspaper to make the article more interesting, rather than the contribution of the author.

Re: Think organic food is better for you, animals, and the planet? Think again

#33

Post by hootguy » Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:08 PM UTC

technotony wrote: post #12

rossdavidh wrote: post #4

I have to admit, whenever I see something like this, my immediate response is: who paid for them to write this. I am reminded of the many talking heads in finance prior to 2008 who assured us that our financial system providing more debt than ever to support home loans was good for the economy. I'm not saying it's impossible for organic to have downsides. It's not even impossible that those downsides might be substan…

A challenge is that with this debate (say organic vs GMO) both sides have a lot at stake financially and you can make this argument either way. How then should one decide what to trust and read?

How about taking the competing arguments at face value and evaluating them against each other? If qui bono is the only question you ask, you shut down a lot of your brain.