Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study • Hacker News Board

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#31

Post by pyre » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:24 AM UTC

jqm wrote: post #22

mixologic wrote: post #11

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?

I can just about guarantee you those companies couldn't care less about a few 10 thousands of people eating a little organic food. It's not a threat to them and they simply don't care enough to put out sock puppets. This lack of caring actually gives the new hippie-science disregarding (or whatever you want to call it) authors like Micheal Pollan more air time because nobody calls them on it when they get out of boun…

All you've basically done is attempted to marginalize a group of people ("couldn't care less about a few 10 thousands of people"), while calling them out for being 'wrong.' In addition, you've attempted to call out HN as being the negation of a "group of intelligent rational people" because they don't share your views. On top of that, you've in no way told us why all of these people are wrong, other than "the people that know the real truth have better things to do than explain it to you."

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#32

Post by shadowmint » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:26 AM UTC

SeanLuke wrote: post #21

drakaal wrote: post #10

Earlier 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…

> You could dust your plants with arsenic and call them Organic. Support this claim.

Well, you can call your plants organic, but you can't label them organic; at least in the US you're required to be certified to use that term in labeling.

...and actually the claim is explicitly false.

    205.602 Non-synthetic substances prohibited for use in 
            organic crop production

      This is the National List of natural, or nonsynthetic,
      materials that are specifically prohibited in organic 
      crop production. This list includes natural—but highly 
      toxic—materials, *such as arsenic*

See www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5101542

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#33

Post by pyre » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:41 AM UTC

bellerocky wrote: post #8

I don't think anyone in my family eats organic foods. Many of the older generation have lived into their 90's and 80's. My grandparents are in their 80's now. Would their parents have lived into their 100's had they eaten organic food? They weren't sickly miserable people all their lives. I just don't get the ultra-health kick. My take is to stop worrying about your food so much and eat whatever satisfies your hunger…

The way that food is produced now differs significantly than the way it was produced even 50 years ago. To use the lives of your relatives that lived into their 80's and 90's as 'proof' that no one needs organic food is disingenuous, regardless of the existence (or lack) of health benefits to eating organic food.

As an example, did your 90-year-old relatives eat Monstano-engineered "Round Up-Ready" corn for a majority of their lives? If not, then how can you claim that their lives have any bearing on the current situation?

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#34

Post by vixin » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:45 AM UTC

aaron695 wrote: post #23

Organic is a toxic anti-science religion. Do we really need an article explaining how organic is not better for you? Do people on HN really think that could be true? I'd like to think not. If you go to an organic farmer and explain that this method using chemicals has been prove better and harmless through science they won't do it because they are fundamentalists. I'm amazed by the tolerance of the organic religion b…

Good to be clear that any contrary evidence presented in the future will evidently, be nonsense, because 'chemicals have been prove (sic) better and harmless through science'. Thanks for that assurance.

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#35

Post by jqm » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:58 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #31

jqm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can just about guarantee you those companies couldn't care less about a few 10 thousands of people eating a little organic food. It's not a threat to them and they simply don't care enough to put out sock puppets. This lack of caring actually gives the new hippie-science disregarding (or whatever you want to call it) authors like Micheal Pollan more air time because nobody calls them on it when they get out of boun…

All you've basically done is attempted to marginalize a group of people ("couldn't care less about a few 10 thousands of people"), while calling them out for being 'wrong.' In addition, you've attempted to call out HN as being the negation of a "group of intelligent rational people" because they don't share your views. On top of that, you've in no way told us why all of these people are wrong, other than "the people…

I haven't called anyone out for being wrong (except the original poster on his shill suspicion, I believe he is unreasonable and almost certainly wrong on that count).

All I'm saying is that it is unlikely these companies care enough about a small niche market that doesn't really doesn't pose a danger to their business nor impact them enough to post shills.

As for unscientific views on the topic of food production... It's not a matter of "wrong". It's a matter of acceptance of science. The rejection of science in favor of unreasonable conspiracy theories and anti-scientific pop authors by this many presumably intelligent members of a "tech" site is surprising and a bit disturbing.

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#36

Post by drakaal » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 8:03 AM UTC

shadowmint wrote: post #32

SeanLuke wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could dust your plants with arsenic and call them Organic. Support this claim.

Well, you can call your plants organic, but you can't label them organic; at least in the US you're required to be certified to use that term in labeling. ...and actually the claim is explicitly false. 205.602 Non-synthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production This is the National List of natural, or nonsynthetic, materials that are specifically prohibited in organic crop production. This list inc…

My bad. I don't farm anymore, and am out of date. 2009 they changed the rules. Previously you could use Arsenic in Organic farming.

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/organic_arsenical...

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#37

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 8:25 AM UTC

jqm wrote: post #26

Retric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pesticides have not been proven harmless, just acceptably harmful. Much like how lead is bad for you but some lead in drinking water is accepted. There is a similar issue with GMO food. Everything out there might be safe, but there is little research done before new strains enter mass production so some caution is reasonable even without demonstrated harm. PS: IMO, anything still considered safe after 30 years is pro…

Some pesticides are pretty harmful some are really not. There are many unrelated types of compounds we are talking about here... from severe (and generally now banned) biocides like Methyl Bromide gas all the way to a light camomile tea solution. It's like your dad saying "drugs are bad!" then proceeding to drink a six pack. Dose and type mean everything. Not all pesticides are dangerous to man nor the general enviro…

[deleted]

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#38

Post by coldtea » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 9:08 AM UTC

pg890432 wrote: post #19

coldtea wrote: post #9

Of 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?

I made my point already.

A lot of the experts are on the payroll of the food industry. They work directly on it, or their research is funded by it. The same way there was tons of tobacco industry sponsored studies in the seventies, that said it was all OK. The same way studies on sugar were downplayed.

A university (research funds aside) doesn't have the kind of multi-billion interests a whole industry have. Their researchers have other shit that can interfere with their research (e.g the need to churn out papers to stay afloat, or the desire to write a controversial paper to make their names known), but nothing that trumps hard multibillion monetary interests.

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#39

Post by pistle » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 12:34 PM UTC

politician wrote: post #30

pistle wrote: post #17

Quick, 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 imp…

"Deer: Predation or Starvation" [1], is an exercise many may remember from high school biology class. In the exercise, the implicit goal is for students to recognize that the deer population shrinkage was a good and natural outcome leading to balance and that balance is good. There are various problems with the exercise though; for example, we only see a few years of "balance" with the implication that it continues f…

Big agra has been able to shrink the cost per calorie at a rate which has kept food costs in check, so I'm not sure I can allow the assumption of increased costs being a given. We can talk portion of costs, relative costs, or per capita... there could be advances that enable a new green revolution... if you would just pray at the altar of big agra and wear your nitrate and phosphate filters according to the directions. :)

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#40

Post by bellerocky » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 2:24 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #33

bellerocky wrote: post #8

I don't think anyone in my family eats organic foods. Many of the older generation have lived into their 90's and 80's. My grandparents are in their 80's now. Would their parents have lived into their 100's had they eaten organic food? They weren't sickly miserable people all their lives. I just don't get the ultra-health kick. My take is to stop worrying about your food so much and eat whatever satisfies your hunger…

The way that food is produced now differs significantly than the way it was produced even 50 years ago. To use the lives of your relatives that lived into their 80's and 90's as 'proof' that no one needs organic food is disingenuous, regardless of the existence (or lack) of health benefits to eating organic food. As an example, did your 90-year-old relatives eat Monstano-engineered "Round Up-Ready" corn for a majorit…

50 years ago they were spraying crops with DTD and other terrible pesticides. If you don't remember, soldiers in the Spanish American war suffered more casualties from the terrible food they were given than from combat[1]. The industrial revolution started more than 90 years ago and industrialized agriculture is not a new phenomenon.

I was thinking about this post this morning and wondering if the ultra-longevity origanic food types would cut off their testiciles if it was shown that you could squeeze out a few extra years of life if you did it early enough. This micro-managing of food eaten is obsessive, although I think half the people writing comments are actually conspiracy crazed about Monsanto and other big companies who must be out to get them (which is not to say that big companies are not screwing over people or small farms, they probably are).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_beef_scandal