Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Discussion of Skeptic magazine and Letters to the Editor
User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby fromthehills » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:25 pm

ForestDweller wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:What evidence is there that you're avoiding a risk by going organic?

I referenced a study where plums were grown in neighboring fields, one organic, one not. The non-organic plums won out in the nutrient tests. So there's no clear tendency where organics are proven to be better.

Again, what evidence of risk are you avoiding?


In post 61 I mentioned some "risks" that can be avoided. Organics are not proven to be better, nor is conventional. I haven't stated that anything is proven. I am working on, developing a persuasive argument. I understand that you remain unconvinced. I do not doubt your conclusion that there's no clear tendency revealed in the plum study that you reference. The persuasive argument will probably not shake an experienced skeptic; the eventual audience would be others, closer to the fence.

I am working on combining many angles to support the hypothesis that organic is better. Ethics and probability, even "revenge," all of that plays into it. My argument isn't going to stand on any one factor.

I did not have that previous link by the way so thanks for the earlier reference. Honestly. looking at it quickly I found the article carry a negative bias toward organic, that surpassed the stated evidence. Still it is great info.


WTF? Am I reading that you are seeking evidence for your conclusion?

So if my conclusion is that beer is good for you, and I go seeking that evidence, I'll find it, and come up with a persuasive argument.

This is dishonest. The question should be: Is beer good for you? Then I find evidence for positive or negative effects.

Here the question is: Are "organic" foods better than "conventional" foods? My conclusion, based on what I have read is "No". Your conclusion is based on what? You have come to the conclusion, then are seeking evidence to back that conclusion. This is backwards.

My persuasive argument for "beer is good for you" may not convince the confirmed teetotaler, or the guy with liver disease, but I hope to persuade the fence sitter, the kid that just turned 21 that was wondering if beer drinking is a good lifestyle choice. :roll:

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:54 pm

fromthehills wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:What evidence is there that you're avoiding a risk by going organic?

I referenced a study where plums were grown in neighboring fields, one organic, one not. The non-organic plums won out in the nutrient tests. So there's no clear tendency where organics are proven to be better.

Again, what evidence of risk are you avoiding?


In post 61 I mentioned some "risks" that can be avoided. Organics are not proven to be better, nor is conventional. I haven't stated that anything is proven. I am working on, developing a persuasive argument. I understand that you remain unconvinced. I do not doubt your conclusion that there's no clear tendency revealed in the plum study that you reference. The persuasive argument will probably not shake an experienced skeptic; the eventual audience would be others, closer to the fence.

I am working on combining many angles to support the hypothesis that organic is better. Ethics and probability, even "revenge," all of that plays into it. My argument isn't going to stand on any one factor.

I did not have that previous link by the way so thanks for the earlier reference. Honestly. looking at it quickly I found the article carry a negative bias toward organic, that surpassed the stated evidence. Still it is great info.


WTF? Am I reading that you are seeking evidence for your conclusion?

So if my conclusion is that beer is good for you, and I go seeking that evidence, I'll find it, and come up with a persuasive argument.

This is dishonest. The question should be: Is beer good for you? Then I find evidence for positive or negative effects.

Here the question is: Are "organic" foods better than "conventional" foods? My conclusion, based on what I have read is "No". Your conclusion is based on what? You have come to the conclusion, then are seeking evidence to back that conclusion. This is backwards.

My persuasive argument for "beer is good for you" may not convince the confirmed teetotaler, or the guy with liver disease, but I hope to persuade the fence sitter, the kid that just turned 21 that was wondering if beer drinking is a good lifestyle choice. :roll:


Slow down a bit eh? There is nothing dishonest going on here. I have not made any conclusions at all. I am working toward evaluating an hypothesis, and I yes I favor one side of the argument, and you btw seem to favor the other. The persuasive argument piece, is part of something else that I am working on, another piece of writing altogether. Even in that, I don't intend to represent anything with flat-out dishonesty. I do hope to create a practical, fact-based but persuasive argument in that. The conventional skeptical conclusion (since we're talking conclusions now) as to this issue, is weak.

You are attaching negative connotations to my mention of developing a persuasive argument. Why is that? If you think that ALL of the factors and evidence currently available lead to the IRREFUTABLE conclusion that non-organic food is better, then firstly you are either not reviewing the actual evidence or you are delusional, and secondly, nothing that I post is going to affect your opinion anyhow, you will faithfully remain with the skeptics on the issue until one of the skeptical talking heads determines that it's okay to change your perspective. Here's to that tipping point!

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby fromthehills » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:20 pm

Fair enough, maybe I was reading too much into it, but your post did appear to be in favor of cherry picking evidence to support your own conclusion

BTW, as I mentioned, I was an organic food proponent. My wife still buys organic food, but has admitted that it just makes her feel better about it. I don't know why. I'm also not proposing that conventional crops are healthier. I do however accept the evidence that conventional crops are more efficient in feeding more people, they are less expensive, and probably better for the environment, and no less healthful than organic crops.

Being a skeptic isn't about following a figure head, that's dogma. "Organic" is a sales strategy that has been successful in creating a brand loyalty. This is more accurate than my earlier statement of it being a belief system.

Read Blacksamwell's link http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1567 It's very good.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:57 pm

fromthehills wrote:Fair enough, maybe I was reading too much into it, but your post did appear to be in favor of cherry picking evidence to support your own conclusion

BTW, as I mentioned, I was an organic food proponent. My wife still buys organic food, but has admitted that it just makes her feel better about it. I don't know why. I'm also not proposing that conventional crops are healthier. I do however accept the evidence that conventional crops are more efficient in feeding more people, they are less expensive, and probably better for the environment, and no less healthful than organic crops.

Being a skeptic isn't about following a figure head, that's dogma. "Organic" is a sales strategy that has been successful in creating a brand loyalty. This is more accurate than my earlier statement of it being a belief system.

Read Blacksamwell's link http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1567 It's very good.


I have read Blacksamwell's link and as I posted, and as I said there is good information there though it seems biased. Not a monetary-based bias; more the bias that a writer can fall into when one knows that the preponderance of conventional thought is toward one side of the spectrum - and unconsciously leaning to that side of it, that surfacing in the writing without one's noticing it.

I am mindful of your switch from organic to non and I am hopeful you will be willing to revisit that decision some day, when enough evidence is assembled for you to transition back, where you can, if you can afford it. There is no shortage of reasons to do so - for instance you could move more toward organic beef and chicken. There are several direct benefits to doing so. And please don't post that "campylobacter in organic chicken" story, I am so sick of that, as if the whole poultry industry isn't plagued with campylobacter in its' open-vat processing. You would no longer be supporting morally offensive animal treatment and feeding issues. If it were more expensive, well that's easy to handle - let's say for the sake of argument that you are eating too much anyhow ha ha (yes I am assuming for fun) - and taking in too many calories as it is - so, eat less of better, if only morally better food, because your body doesn't know what to do with all of that extra anyhow and you just don't have time to burn all of those excess calories, that takes forever so they are just piling up.

I have no idea why you would come to the conclusion that non-organic farming is better for the environment than organic, but don't feel as though you need to prove anything to me there. And in thinking non-organic to be no less healthful, well that is not completely supported by the evidence and there are so many other factors to consider in one's food purchasing decisions.

You can call Organic a sales strategy, and be correct. To sum it as that, is clearly wrong. It is a certified farming methodology, basically.

I can accept that you do not blindly follow skeptic dogma. As far as cherry-picking evidence goes, I have an hypothesis. I'm going with the evidence that supports it, but I am accumulating all of the evidence that I can find, which goes against it as well. It is critically important to address questionable information and to accept that which is beyond question, even if it does not support the working hypothesis. I'm not interested in trying to directly contradict reality here, I'm just building the argument that organic food is better than conventional, if and when one can afford it. It isn't just about the bio-characteristics of the food itself - it is about the mores of the individual and society, it is about the environment, it is a many sided issue.

EDIT - added word "unconsciously"

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:40 pm

ForestDweller wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:Here is a strawberry study if you would like to look at it:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0012346
"Our findings show that the organic strawberry farms produced higher quality fruit and that their higher quality soils may have greater microbial functional capability and resilience to stress. These findings justify additional investigations aimed at detecting and quantifying such effects and their interactions."

I don't see the figures that support that conclusion very well. Except for size and water content the berries were almost exactly the same. Most measures were within the error range.

Can you tell what measures they are basing that conclusion on?


If I understand your question, well the tables under Results and Discussion - Strawberry Quality illustrate comparative measurements.

It seems that your complaint is similar to what mine was - we see results, then the researcher's conclusions are presented - and you are not seeing a clear correlation between the two in this instance, whereas I was not seeing the correlation in the the previous study.

It is important to be careful when evaluating comparative elements of things that are already so very similar. They're all Strawberries. So, stating the berries were almost exactly the same, I see that as a very loaded statement not supported by the evidence here. Exactly the same is EXACTLY. "Almost" exactly is a difficult phrase to seriously consider. I understand that we are just bantering the evidence and that is fine. Scientifically speaking and in the case of organic vs. conventional, the difference between exactly and not exactly, is huge and it has to be. The non-organic side bases its' entire argument on "relative similarity" which is pretty weak when there are obvious differences - IMHO.

But do those "obvious" differences have any benefit to one's health and can one show evidence to verify that they do.

If not, then any "obvious" differences are kind if irrelevant.

I think you understand my question though. I did review the data they presented and I saw many instances of overlap where one variety of berry would have higher figures in the organic column, but the next variety would have higher figures in the conventional column. I didn't see any clear trend.

In some measures where the researchers said the organic berries were better, I noticed that the measures were almost the same and were actually within the range of error given. The sugar content after taste testing is one like this. When figures are that close with overlapping error ranges aren't the figures, for all intents and purposes, the same? I have to wonder why the researchers call it a meaningful difference?

The shelf life study stood out in my eyes. The organics lasted a day longer. But how can we tell if that had anything really to do with the organic nature of the berry? The conventional berries were larger and held more water. That alone would likely make them more prone to fungal growth. If we were to organically tweak the nutrients to obtain organically grown berries of the same size and water content, would they then mold at the same rate as the conventional berries in this study? So is it that organic berries last longer on the shelf, or that smaller, more dense, and less juicy berries last longer. At sufficient concentrations sugar is a pretty good anti-fungal itself.

I didn't have time to study the figures too closely. I was wondering about some of the nutrient level figures and if they were done by fresh weight. If the conventional berries are larger and have greater fluid content, then they could contain the same overall quantity of nutrients as the organic, but their greater water content and weight will make their percentage figures look smaller.

Was the taste testing they did blinded at all? (EDIT: Yes, the samples were randomized and the testers did not know which they were tasting.)

Overall I would have to say the figures only show that the conventional berries were bigger and had more water content. But not by much. Any other differences that one might label "better quality" were too small or of contradictory trends to give either fruit the edge. I'd say this study would have to be lumped in with the British survey you linked to before that concluded there's no consistent and measurable difference.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:18 pm

ForestDweller wrote:I have read Blacksamwell's link and as I posted, and as I said there is good information there though it seems biased. Not a monetary-based bias; more the bias that a writer can fall into when one knows that the preponderance of conventional thought is toward one side of the spectrum - and unconsciously leaning to that side of it, that surfacing in the writing without one's noticing it.

What? I read an examination of the available evidence. What evidence would you show that would suggest the writers were being influenced by "conventional wisdom" instead of the studies they were citing?

ForestDweller wrote:I am mindful of your switch from organic to non and I am hopeful you will be willing to revisit that decision some day, when enough evidence is assembled for you to transition back, where you can, if you can afford it.

I think Hills is right, you don't really get this whole skeptic thing. I won't presume to speak for Hills, but I suspect he's willing to revisit the decision anytime new evidence is presented.

You seem to presume that new evidence will support the efficacy of organic food. That's bad form. Follow the evidence wherever it leads and quit championing either side.
ForestDweller wrote:[..]If it were more expensive, well that's easy to handle - let's say for the sake of argument that you are eating too much anyhow ha ha (yes I am assuming for fun) - and taking in too many calories as it is - so, eat less of better, if only morally better food, because your body doesn't know what to do with all of that extra anyhow and you just don't have time to burn all of those excess calories, that takes forever so they are just piling up.

I'll let the hungry people of the world know your suggestion. I'm sure they'll be thrilled.

ForestDweller wrote:I have no idea why you would come to the conclusion that non-organic farming is better for the environment than organic, but don't feel as though you need to prove anything to me there. And in thinking non-organic to be no less healthful, well that is not completely supported by the evidence[...]

Isn't it though? Are you reading the articles I've provided fully? That Cosmos magazine article explains pretty well how conventional farming techniques can be better than organic techniques for the environment.

ForestDweller wrote:You can call Organic a sales strategy, and be correct. To sum it as that, is clearly wrong. It is a certified farming methodology, basically.

True. But if there's no evidence of benefits to health or environment then all that's left is the marketing strategy.

ForestDweller wrote:I can accept that you do not blindly follow skeptic dogma. As far as cherry-picking evidence goes, I have an hypothesis. I'm going with the evidence that supports it, but I am accumulating all of the evidence that I can find, which goes against it as well. It is critically important to address questionable information and to accept that which is beyond question, even if it does not support the working hypothesis.

Great! It sounds like you're getting it.
ForestDweller wrote:I'm not interested in trying to directly contradict reality here, I'm just building the argument that organic food is better than conventional, if and when one can afford it.

*Facepalm* Argh! Never mind, you don't get it.

If the evidence doesn't support organics as measurably better, then by attempting to build an argument that organics are better you will be directly contradicting reality.

Does that concept make sense?
ForestDweller wrote:It isn't just about the bio-characteristics of the food itself - it is about the mores of the individual and society, it is about the environment, it is a many sided issue.

Well, it should be interesting to watch you twist and spin so that all of the sides support your predetermined position.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby fromthehills » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:10 am

ForestDweller wrote:
I am mindful of your switch from organic to non and I am hopeful you will be willing to revisit that decision some day, when enough evidence is assembled for you to transition back, where you can, if you can afford it. There is no shortage of reasons to do so - for instance you could move more toward organic beef and chicken. There are several direct benefits to doing so. And please don't post that "campylobacter in organic chicken" story, I am so sick of that, as if the whole poultry industry isn't plagued with campylobacter in its' open-vat processing. You would no longer be supporting morally offensive animal treatment and feeding issues. If it were more expensive, well that's easy to handle - let's say for the sake of argument that you are eating too much anyhow ha ha (yes I am assuming for fun) - and taking in too many calories as it is - so, eat less of better, if only morally better food, because your body doesn't know what to do with all of that extra anyhow and you just don't have time to burn all of those excess calories, that takes forever so they are just piling up.


You can assume that I take in too many calories, and you'd be right. They're from beer, though. As I said, my wife buys "organic", which means I eat it, mostly. I don't over-eat. Lots of things you assume about me personally are incorrect. I hunt, or I get beef from a local guy that grass feeds cows. My friends raise Yak, I get some of that, too. I just ate some rabbit sausage, local stuff, this morning, raised on my alfalfa. None "organic" labeled. None of this makes the label "Organic" more healthful or better for the environment. And it doesn't make it the right choice for feeding the world. My financial position doesn't reflect that of the folks that need to eat, whatever the source. Organic foods aren't a rational way to go for them; they need efficiently grown, affordable food. It would be absolute arrogance for me to suggest that they eat the way I do. Yes, I infer that organic proponents are being arrogant. Many proponents of organic seem to think everyone should be eating that way, and it isn't true.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:03 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:I have read Blacksamwell's link and as I posted, and as I said there is good information there though it seems biased. Not a monetary-based bias; more the bias that a writer can fall into when one knows that the preponderance of conventional thought is toward one side of the spectrum - and unconsciously leaning to that side of it, that surfacing in the writing without one's noticing it.

What? I read an examination of the available evidence. What evidence would you show that would suggest the writers were being influenced by "conventional wisdom" instead of the studies they were citing?

ForestDweller wrote:I am mindful of your switch from organic to non and I am hopeful you will be willing to revisit that decision some day, when enough evidence is assembled for you to transition back, where you can, if you can afford it.

I think Hills is right, you don't really get this whole skeptic thing. I won't presume to speak for Hills, but I suspect he's willing to revisit the decision anytime new evidence is presented.

You seem to presume that new evidence will support the efficacy of organic food. That's bad form. Follow the evidence wherever it leads and quit championing either side.
ForestDweller wrote:[..]If it were more expensive, well that's easy to handle - let's say for the sake of argument that you are eating too much anyhow ha ha (yes I am assuming for fun) - and taking in too many calories as it is - so, eat less of better, if only morally better food, because your body doesn't know what to do with all of that extra anyhow and you just don't have time to burn all of those excess calories, that takes forever so they are just piling up.

I'll let the hungry people of the world know your suggestion. I'm sure they'll be thrilled.

ForestDweller wrote:I have no idea why you would come to the conclusion that non-organic farming is better for the environment than organic, but don't feel as though you need to prove anything to me there. And in thinking non-organic to be no less healthful, well that is not completely supported by the evidence[...]

Isn't it though? Are you reading the articles I've provided fully? That Cosmos magazine article explains pretty well how conventional farming techniques can be better than organic techniques for the environment.

ForestDweller wrote:You can call Organic a sales strategy, and be correct. To sum it as that, is clearly wrong. It is a certified farming methodology, basically.

True. But if there's no evidence of benefits to health or environment then all that's left is the marketing strategy.

ForestDweller wrote:I can accept that you do not blindly follow skeptic dogma. As far as cherry-picking evidence goes, I have an hypothesis. I'm going with the evidence that supports it, but I am accumulating all of the evidence that I can find, which goes against it as well. It is critically important to address questionable information and to accept that which is beyond question, even if it does not support the working hypothesis.

Great! It sounds like you're getting it.
ForestDweller wrote:I'm not interested in trying to directly contradict reality here, I'm just building the argument that organic food is better than conventional, if and when one can afford it.

*Facepalm* Argh! Never mind, you don't get it.

If the evidence doesn't support organics as measurably better, then by attempting to build an argument that organics are better you will be directly contradicting reality.

Does that concept make sense?
ForestDweller wrote:It isn't just about the bio-characteristics of the food itself - it is about the mores of the individual and society, it is about the environment, it is a many sided issue.

Well, it should be interesting to watch you twist and spin so that all of the sides support your predetermined position.


Considering your perspective, I truly appreciate your patience with me, and I am trying to "get it," to the degree that it is helpful.

I want to address all of your points, but frankly I haven't figured out how to efficiently quote such as you do. I have to take the time to review that, but I don't have that time now. A few thoughts though -

Regarding "this whole skeptic thing" - it has been a long time since debate class, but my recollection is that back then we were assigned positions on topics and had to go with what we were given. Can you not consider my position in this light? It is my working understanding that scientific research does not simply dig deeper into things. An hypothesis is developed and then illustrated to be true based on evidence, or else other information is brought to light. I have an idea, it is my hypothesis. I think it is a good idea, and I am seeking evidence as to relative merit of my idea. In that process I must also look at all of the evidence that contradicts the presumption of my hypothesis and I am doing so. Considering the breadth of this hypothesis, the many angles and amount of information out there, I think it a bit premature for me to jump to any conclusion, despite yours and others' excellent presentation of seemingly contradictory data. After all, I've only brought up snippets of the overall argument.

It seems that you are trying to stifle my exploration of the issue, just because I have begun with a premise to prove or disprove. Unfair.

Debasing my comment to Hills regarding the higher cost of organics, "I'll let the hungry people of the world know..." seems more snide than relevant. I was speaking to 1 individual, not speaking to the issue that you are countering with. I can certainly speak to that issue as well. I have not learned the basic fallacies yet but I am certain that is one. Another one is speaking in extremes or absolutes about issues that are not absolute. "...there is no evidence..." How about the dead zone mentioned in the article we are discussing? Is that evidence of anything at all? Why is it there? Is there no relation between it, and monoculture farming?

Much more to say on this, so more later.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:22 pm

fromthehills wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:
I am mindful of your switch from organic to non and I am hopeful you will be willing to revisit that decision some day, when enough evidence is assembled for you to transition back, where you can, if you can afford it. There is no shortage of reasons to do so - for instance you could move more toward organic beef and chicken. There are several direct benefits to doing so. And please don't post that "campylobacter in organic chicken" story, I am so sick of that, as if the whole poultry industry isn't plagued with campylobacter in its' open-vat processing. You would no longer be supporting morally offensive animal treatment and feeding issues. If it were more expensive, well that's easy to handle - let's say for the sake of argument that you are eating too much anyhow ha ha (yes I am assuming for fun) - and taking in too many calories as it is - so, eat less of better, if only morally better food, because your body doesn't know what to do with all of that extra anyhow and you just don't have time to burn all of those excess calories, that takes forever so they are just piling up.


You can assume that I take in too many calories, and you'd be right. They're from beer, though. As I said, my wife buys "organic", which means I eat it, mostly. I don't over-eat. Lots of things you assume about me personally are incorrect. I hunt, or I get beef from a local guy that grass feeds cows. My friends raise Yak, I get some of that, too. I just ate some rabbit sausage, local stuff, this morning, raised on my alfalfa. None "organic" labeled. None of this makes the label "Organic" more healthful or better for the environment. And it doesn't make it the right choice for feeding the world. My financial position doesn't reflect that of the folks that need to eat, whatever the source. Organic foods aren't a rational way to go for them; they need efficiently grown, affordable food. It would be absolute arrogance for me to suggest that they eat the way I do. Yes, I infer that organic proponents are being arrogant. Many proponents of organic seem to think everyone should be eating that way, and it isn't true.


Thank you for the clarifications. No doubt much as to what you assume of me, also incorrect but then I haven't provided the information so I leave you with no choice.

I drank beer until about 6 months ago, when I arbitrarily decided to stop drinking beer. I have more money now to spend on other things, and it is easier to balance my caloric intake to the amount of work I do. There are serious downsides as well, but at the moment I remain content with my choice.

That is great, that you have alternative food sources to conventional. I don't and have never stated that eating completely 100% organic food is necessary or even realistic; to the contrary I have stated that if available and one can afford it, it is generally speaking the better choice - this is my working hypothesis. The fact is, even certified organic food can be 5% non-organic. I don't eat all organic, only partially. My girlfriend eats more organic than I do.

Organics fed the world for 14,000 years yet now you seem to come to the conclusion that organic food is not a good fit for them. Over 80 studies suggest that organic food can still feed the world. Are you overestimating the efficiency and sustainability of monoculture farming? Am I making the hungry, hungrier by choosing organic, if it's available and I can afford it?

The world by the way is not hungry for lack of food. It is my working understanding that the world is hungry for lack of those in the world who are not hungry, giving a {!#%@} about the hunger of those who are. We have sufficient resources to provide a roof and a meal for us all - we just don't. Efforts are made but they don't go the distance. I don't see how this has much to do with bearing on organic vs. nonorganic, but I will factor it in eventually. If it did, then why the hell hasn't Monsanto solved this problem already?

A gift for the Monsanto board room.

http://transparencygrenade.com/

EDIT - re-written

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby fromthehills » Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:01 pm


User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:38 pm

fromthehills wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png

The grenade is a work of art.


It is what it is.

"Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and one the study's principal investigators"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 134523.htm

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... 0507001640

The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) has come out in favour of organic agriculture. Its report Organic Agriculture and Food Security explicitly states that organic agriculture can address local and global food security challenges [1].

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FAOPromotesOrga ... ulture.php

Edit-added link to full study

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:24 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:Blacksamwell, can you elaborate on your assertion that all foods contain natural nanoparticles?


We evolved with nanoparticles in our food

In looking for this abstract, I found far more studies on potential health benefits of adding various nanoparticles to food than studies worried about what was already there. Research into benefits would also detect harms (a harm is just a negative benefit.)


Do you happen to have a link to the full study? I do not see any reference in the abstract, to nanoparticles in all food. I see reference to ingestion of nanoparticles. Also the text "We evolved with nanoparticles in our food" does not appear in the abstract. Thus this does not validate that nanoparticles are in all food. Not that I don't trust the statement, more that I am seeking to verify.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:28 am

ForestDweller wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:Blacksamwell, can you elaborate on your assertion that all foods contain natural nanoparticles?

What defines "nanoparticle"? Are there naturally occurring components of biological systems that fit the definition?

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:53 am

ForestDweller wrote:"Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and one the study's principal investigators"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 134523.htm

So what's happened in the nearly 5 years since that article? Anyone published studies to support the conclusions?

ForestDweller wrote:http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&fid=1195048&jid=RAF&volumeId=22&issueId=02&aid=1091304&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1742170507001640

This one's had 5 years to stew as well. Are the techniques cited being put into use?

If they are truly economically viable then wouldn't any reasonable business person put them into practice?
ForestDweller wrote:The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) has come out in favour of organic agriculture. Its report Organic Agriculture and Food Security explicitly states that organic agriculture can address local and global food security challenges [1].

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FAOPromotesOrga ... ulture.php

Edit-added link to full study

That's not a link to the report, it's a link to an article about the report. And furthermore the report is not a study, it's more of an analysis of several studies.

In any event, IF all the claims made in that article are true, that's good news. However, as I understand it, there are studies that counter the claims made. It would be nice for us if they turn out to be true, but until we have a set of conclusive evidence it might be too early to throw all of our eggs into that basket.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:59 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:"Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and one the study's principal investigators"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 134523.htm

So what's happened in the nearly 5 years since that article? Anyone published studies to support the conclusions?

ForestDweller wrote:http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&fid=1195048&jid=RAF&volumeId=22&issueId=02&aid=1091304&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1742170507001640

This one's had 5 years to stew as well. Are the techniques cited being put into use?

If they are truly economically viable then wouldn't any reasonable business person put them into practice?
ForestDweller wrote:The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) has come out in favour of organic agriculture. Its report Organic Agriculture and Food Security explicitly states that organic agriculture can address local and global food security challenges [1].

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FAOPromotesOrga ... ulture.php

Edit-added link to full study

That's not a link to the report, it's a link to an article about the report. And furthermore the report is not a study, it's more of an analysis of several studies.

In any event, IF all the claims made in that article are true, that's good news. However, as I understand it, there are studies that counter the claims made. It would be nice for us if they turn out to be true, but until we have a set of conclusive evidence it might be too early to throw all of our eggs into that basket.


These links as it happens are from the same timeframe as the link you posted earlier,

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1567

... - so, you might consider evaluating your evidence from the same (rather irrelevant) standard that you are holding mine to. Or, simply accept that there is some relevance to both your posting and mine.

What basket are you referring to, the basket of feeding the world via organics, or the basket of our debate as to organic generally speaking being better than non-organic? If the former, I agree. If the latter, well I agree with that as well. Speaking personally as to my evaluation of data toward my hypothesis, not only is there more reality-cohesive data in support of it, there's also more data to counter other arguments presented against it. So, I have more work to do, and I am still working on it.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:25 pm

ForestDweller wrote:These links as it happens are from the same timeframe as the link you posted earlier,

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1567

... - so, you might consider evaluating your evidence from the same (rather irrelevant) standard that you are holding mine to.

I'm not applying any standard. Merely asking if the research continues to support these findings. Don't you agree that it would be foolish to ignore any research that's been produced in the 5 years since the studies we're reviewing?

If more recent research supports the same conclusions, that's some very strong evidence. If not, then we may need to wait for further research to get a clear picture.
ForestDweller wrote:Or, simply accept that there is some relevance to both your posting and mine.

Are you presuming that I don't already accept the relevance of all available evidence? If so, why are you making that assumption?
ForestDweller wrote:Speaking personally as to my evaluation of data toward my hypothesis, not only is there more reality-cohesive data in support of it, there's also more data to counter other arguments presented against it. So, I have more work to do, and I am still working on it.

I look forward to reading your evidence.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:37 pm

I like the position of this piece:

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture

The essential message isn't that organics are bad or that conventional is good. The point is that there are benefits and problems with each and one must consider every product on their own merits. However, there are many myths being propagated to promote organic that aren't supported by the evidence.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby fromthehills » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:05 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:I like the position of this piece:

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture

The essential message isn't that organics are bad or that conventional is good. The point is that there are benefits and problems with each and one must consider every product on their own merits. However, there are many myths being propagated to promote organic that aren't supported by the evidence.


Interesting that the author felt she had to repeatedly say that she wasn't vilifying "organic". And yet the comments are still very heated.

Myth #4= Spot on.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:46 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:These links as it happens are from the same timeframe as the link you posted earlier,

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1567

... - so, you might consider evaluating your evidence from the same (rather irrelevant) standard that you are holding mine to.

I'm not applying any standard. Merely asking if the research continues to support these findings. Don't you agree that it would be foolish to ignore any research that's been produced in the 5 years since the studies we're reviewing?

If more recent research supports the same conclusions, that's some very strong evidence. If not, then we may need to wait for further research to get a clear picture.
ForestDweller wrote:Or, simply accept that there is some relevance to both your posting and mine.

Are you presuming that I don't already accept the relevance of all available evidence? If so, why are you making that assumption?
ForestDweller wrote:Speaking personally as to my evaluation of data toward my hypothesis, not only is there more reality-cohesive data in support of it, there's also more data to counter other arguments presented against it. So, I have more work to do, and I am still working on it.

I look forward to reading your evidence.


What you did is, take issue with my posts for being 5 years old after having yourself promoted a 5 year old post. If you have additional contradictory evidence, as always it would be helpful to review it. It would not be the first time you have meaningfully corrected my working understanding :)

Well I'm not sure how to answer as to whether or not I am presuming that you accept or don't accept relevance of all available evidence. My impression is that currently there is a bias, perhaps legitimately so, to your perspective on the issue, likely due to your not having seen sufficient evidence to think anything contrary. Are you open to new evidence, well I think that you are, but it does not fill me with confidence in that when you are bringing up the fact that a study or article that clearly speaks toward the veracity of my position, is 5 years old, when your evidence is also 5 years old. That would suggest that you are not accepting the relevance of the evidence simply because there might be an as-yet undefined, more recent contradictory study. Yet, there is no evidence of that study stated. You are saying that you did not mean to prematurely debase the information and I accept that. I'm still digging, I have not uncovered everything nor have I posted everything that I have uncovered. I do want to; it is simply a matter of time!

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:03 pm

fromthehills wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:I like the position of this piece:

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture

The essential message isn't that organics are bad or that conventional is good. The point is that there are benefits and problems with each and one must consider every product on their own merits. However, there are many myths being propagated to promote organic that aren't supported by the evidence.


Interesting that the author felt she had to repeatedly say that she wasn't vilifying "organic". And yet the comments are still very heated.

Myth #4= Spot on.


I am familiar with the article and it is jaded garbage.


Her opening statement,

"let me state unequivocally that I’m not saying organic farming is bad – far from it." - then she goes on with scattered argument to trash it.

This is akin to Georgio Tatalopolous (sp) basically saying, I'm not saying it's aliens, but - it's aliens.

Look at her making straw man presumptions such as:

"Myth #1: Organic Farms Don’t Use Pesticides"

That might be a myth to her, but it is just an irrelevant statement of misdirection - and it's her first major point.

Regarding Myth #4, if you were to go through the tedium of re-reading every word I've written in regard to my hypothesis you would find that I am aware of this as well. It is obvious by definition, as even certified organic is only 95% necessarily organic. And I am not even promoting a black-and-white comparison; I'm just saying, my hypothesis is that generally speaking, if one can afford it and it's available, organic food is the better choice as compared to non-organic and for many reasons.

The article is junk. I agree with you, the article seems to have a rather clear bias against organic. Still it's out there and frankly I like articles such as this because it is so easy to unravel them (not that I've taken sufficient time to do that in this case) - and unraveling the competing argument goes a long way toward supporting one's own.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10521
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:21 pm

ForestDweller wrote: - and unraveling the competing argument goes a long way toward supporting one's own.

No it doesn't, not even a little bit.

Showing that the premise "all A is B" is false says nothing about the premise "all A is C". It may be true that "no A is C" and that "no A is B".
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:26 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
ForestDweller wrote: - and unraveling the competing argument goes a long way toward supporting one's own.

No it doesn't, not even a little bit.

Showing that the premise "all A is B" is false says nothing about the premise "all A is C". It may be true that "no A is C" and that "no A is B".


Not saying that your point is incorrect, but I'm having trouble with its' correlation to mine. How does all A is B is false, relate to unraveling the competing argument? Last I checked, I leg-sweep an opponent, he's down. If the competing argument is false, then there is no longer a valid competing argument.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10521
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:40 pm

ForestDweller wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
ForestDweller wrote: - and unraveling the competing argument goes a long way toward supporting one's own.

No it doesn't, not even a little bit.

Showing that the premise "all A is B" is false says nothing about the premise "all A is C". It may be true that "no A is C" and that "no A is B".


Not saying that your point is incorrect, but I'm having trouble with its' correlation to mine. How does all A is B is false, relate to unraveling the competing argument? Last I checked, I leg-sweep an opponent, he's down. If the competing argument is false, then there is no longer a valid competing argument.

Winning one match does not mean you will win the next one. They are independant.

Falsifying one hypothesis does not support a competing hypothesis except in the rare circumstances that there are only two possibilities (showing that "the coin landed heads" is false does show that it landed tails up).

Showing that your hypothesis is a better fit for available data is a valid argument, but it does not necessarily falsify competing hypotheses.

Organic vs non-organic is not a dichotomy, so falsifying one does not validate the other.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:50 pm

ForestDweller wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:These links as it happens are from the same timeframe as the link you posted earlier,

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1567

... - so, you might consider evaluating your evidence from the same (rather irrelevant) standard that you are holding mine to.

I'm not applying any standard. Merely asking if the research continues to support these findings. Don't you agree that it would be foolish to ignore any research that's been produced in the 5 years since the studies we're reviewing?

If more recent research supports the same conclusions, that's some very strong evidence. If not, then we may need to wait for further research to get a clear picture.
ForestDweller wrote:Or, simply accept that there is some relevance to both your posting and mine.

Are you presuming that I don't already accept the relevance of all available evidence? If so, why are you making that assumption?
ForestDweller wrote:Speaking personally as to my evaluation of data toward my hypothesis, not only is there more reality-cohesive data in support of it, there's also more data to counter other arguments presented against it. So, I have more work to do, and I am still working on it.

I look forward to reading your evidence.


What you did is, take issue with my posts for being 5 years old after having yourself promoted a 5 year old post.

How is my question a form of "taking issue with"? Please note I've not dismissed or ridiculed the information you presented. I merely asked if more recent research also supports the conclusions from 5 years ago. The same question applies to any 5 year old sources, including those I've presented.
ForestDweller wrote:Are you open to new evidence, well I think that you are, but it does not fill me with confidence in that when you are bringing up the fact that a study or article that clearly speaks toward the veracity of my position, is 5 years old, when your evidence is also 5 years old.

Did I say that the age of any evidence invalidates it? (Hint: No, I did not.)

Time merely allows the opportunity for new evidence to be presented. A series of evidence all pointing to the same conclusions is much stronger than a single point of evidence that may or may not be supported by subsequent studies or a series of evidence that point to different conclusions. In other words, time allows for development of a consensus.
ForestDweller wrote:That would suggest that you are not accepting the relevance of the evidence simply because there might be an as-yet undefined, more recent contradictory study.

Are you certain of that? Why do you think my questions suggest that I'm dismissing any evidence?

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:00 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
ForestDweller wrote: - and unraveling the competing argument goes a long way toward supporting one's own.

No it doesn't, not even a little bit.

Showing that the premise "all A is B" is false says nothing about the premise "all A is C". It may be true that "no A is C" and that "no A is B".


Not saying that your point is incorrect, but I'm having trouble with its' correlation to mine. How does all A is B is false, relate to unraveling the competing argument? Last I checked, I leg-sweep an opponent, he's down. If the competing argument is false, then there is no longer a valid competing argument.

Winning one match does not mean you will win the next one. They are independant.

Falsifying one hypothesis does not support a competing hypothesis except in the rare circumstances that there are only two possibilities (showing that "the coin landed heads" is false does show that it landed tails up).

Showing that your hypothesis is a better fit for available data is a valid argument, but it does not necessarily falsify competing hypotheses.

Organic vs non-organic is not a dichotomy, so falsifying one does not validate the other.


Okay, I see your point. I was speaking to the argument represented overall by that one article, toward my hypothesis. I was not speaking in circumspection as to having concluded that I have won the proving of my hypothesis in regard to all hypothetical arguments. Note my repeated statements as to being in the process of accumulating evidence both pro and con, and not having reached the point of conclusion. It is good to keep your clarification in mind, though again I was not speaking to the overall question, just to the benefit of unraveling the one article as it pertains to the question.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:41 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:Did I say that the age of any evidence invalidates it? (Hint: No, I did not.)

Time merely allows the opportunity for new evidence to be presented. A series of evidence all pointing to the same conclusions is much stronger than a single point of evidence that may or may not be supported by subsequent studies or a series of evidence that point to different conclusions. In other words, time allows for development of a consensus.
ForestDweller wrote:That would suggest that you are not accepting the relevance of the evidence simply because there might be an as-yet undefined, more recent contradictory study.

Are you certain of that? Why do you think my questions suggest that I'm dismissing any evidence?


Am I certain, well stating that I perceive a possible suggestion, should illustrate that I am not at all certain. I did not think that your asking if I knew of more recent, supportive evidence was itself a dismissal of evidence; it appeared more like a common distractive argumentative tactic. Evidently you were simply genuinely curious.

Sooo. Let us look further at the article you posted. Note the last line, which references a study that we have been discussing. It states that the study, which I posted in favor of my hypothesis, was "fatally flawed." This caught my eye and I wanted to learn more as to these fatal flaws.

Here is the quote:

Ok, and while I’m adding in notes: stop citing Bedgley et al. 2007 as evidence that organic farming produces equal yields: this study has been shown to be REALLY BADLY flawed, and was generally torn apart (e.g. this response article).

I reviewed the abstract to the "study" that this brief statement references. I link to the abstract, below. I have not yet found the full study.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... 0507002189

It is written by Alex Avery, Director of Research, Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues.

I became curious as to the Hudson Institute. Here is the Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute

Quoting from the Wiki:

The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left".[6]

I felt it important to the discussion both to acknowledge the evident existence of this "contrary study" and to reveal the interest behind it. I have yet to review the full study, but it seemed only fair to point it out - I am after all reviewing both sides of my hypothesis, and this study is said to identify fatal flaws in the study that I linked to earlier.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:05 pm

ForestDweller wrote:Here is the quote:

Ok, and while I’m adding in notes: stop citing Bedgley et al. 2007 as evidence that organic farming produces equal yields: this study has been shown to be REALLY BADLY flawed, and was generally torn apart (e.g. this response article).

I reviewed the abstract to the "study" that this brief statement references. I link to the abstract, below. I have not yet found the full study.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... 0507002189

It is written by Alex Avery, Director of Research, Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues.

I became curious as to the Hudson Institute. Here is the Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute

Quoting from the Wiki:

The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left".[6]

I felt it important to the discussion both to acknowledge the evident existence of this "contrary study" and to reveal the interest behind it. I have yet to review the full study, but it seemed only fair to point it out - I am after all reviewing both sides of my hypothesis, and this study is said to identify fatal flaws in the study that I linked to earlier.


I think that I have located the bit of toilet scrap upon which Alex Avery impressed his thoughts. This was used by a Scientific American contributing author to counter the validity of the Bedgley study? Wow. Based on my read of it, I would say "generally torn apart" is more than a bit of a stretch. Presuming that this is actually the "study," I am cross-checking the assertions that are made within it.

http://www.ohiopma.org/pdfs/insight/org ... rt-fat.pdf

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:38 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
That's not a link to the report, it's a link to an article about the report. And furthermore the report is not a study, it's more of an analysis of several studies.


Apologies, here is the link that I meant to paste there:

http://www.mosesorganic.org/attachments ... dworld.pdf

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:17 pm

"Alex Avery from the Hudson Institute is spreading false
and misleading claims about this study." - Catherine Badgley, Ivette Perfecto, M. Jahi Chappell and Andrea Samulon (of their study http://www.mosesorganic.org/attachments ... dworld.pdf )

Following at the end of this post is a link to the response written by the authors above, in regard to the Alex Avery/Hudson Institute document that attempts to undermine their study as "fatally flawed." Admittedly this link is cumbersome; I would be happy to send the .pdf that I have, to anyone interested. It seems that the Scientific American contributing author Christie Wilcox, if she read the Badgley authors response to the document criticizing their work, elected not to mention it in her piece, stating only - "Ok, and while I’m adding in notes: stop citing Bedgley et al. 2007 as evidence that organic farming produces equal yields: this study has been shown to be REALLY BADLY flawed, and was generally torn apart (e.g. this response article)."

The response article she is speaking of, being this:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... 0507002189

Which is the abstract of this:

http://www.ohiopma.org/pdfs/insight/org ... rt-fat.pdf

Here is the authors of the Badgley study's response, to Alex Avery's writing:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/46964262/St ... sir24-0003

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:35 am

This situation suggests to me at least, that evidently in some cases, Organic store-bought beef is better than conventional store-bought beef.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 ... ery-store/

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4855
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Austin Harper » Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:37 am

It says that non-organic beef contains a beef product that is certified by the USDA as safe for human consumption.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

slee
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:21 pm

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby slee » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:06 am

The FDA has been very busy the past few years shutting down the 'ma & pa' organic food/dairies around the country. Most report that it's SWAT teams raiding them with guns drawn...WTH?
California raid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OddINatuAXw

2nd California organic store, video shows cops raiding a foodstore with guns drawn!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b27EFldZ ... ure=fvwrel

There are lots of video out there from the past 2 yrs showing big brother arresting kids for selling lemonade in their yards, dairy companies being raided and shutdown. People getting arrested for having gardens in their own yard etc.

Have you seen the documentary Food Inc(2008)? It covers how big agri / gov putting small farms out of business. Excellent documentary:
http://www.56.com/u75/v_NTA5MDI2OTY.html
This is a Japanese website hosting the video, but it's in English, can't find the full version on a US website.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:18 am

Austin Harper wrote:It says that non-organic beef contains a beef product that is certified by the USDA as safe for human consumption.


Indisputable statement - the ammonia doused product is considered to be "safe." Notable though that the processing and ingredient are not mentioned on the food label. The news article also says "Foshee says it is more like gelatin and not nutritious as ground beef because the protein comes mostly from connective tissue, not muscle meat.
“[It will] fill you up, but won’t do any good,” Foshee said."

I realize that this is not a research study. Does this not suggest though, that pound for pound, ground beef with this processed additive, is less nutritious than the ground beef without it? If so, it would seem that ground beef without the processed additive, would be better food than ground beef with the additive. Thus, Organic ground beef, presumed not to possess the ground additive at all, would have to be considered better than conventional ground beef that may or may not contain the additive, at least in this particular aspect. This premise that Organic generally speaking is better than conventional, is a bit aside my original post here. I want to start another post more toward this related premise but I want to put a bit more work into that before I do.

It is excellent form to regard FDA as authoritative in regard to food product safety however the FDA should not escape skepticism (okay as a food, less nutritious, unmentioned on labels) - nor should scientific research in general, as much research is funded by organizations with an innate bias toward a specific outcome. Though this concept may not be applicable in this instance it would seem worth keeping in mind.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:37 am

slee wrote:n the documentary Food Inc(2008)? It covers how big agri / gov putting small farms out of business. Excellent documentary:


Thank you for the links. Reviewing the comments on the raid and the links there, I remain unclear as to just what was going on, in that first video. I personally have not yet watched all of Food, Inc. It's in my Netflix instant queue, I'll get to that ASAP. I am familiar with some of the material it is said to cover.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby fromthehills » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:25 pm


User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby fromthehills » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:28 pm


User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:46 pm

fromthehills wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/12/us-food-wheat-salt-idUSBRE82B0I220120312


And by using non-GM methods. Good to know!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... witterfeed

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ ... .2120.html

slee
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:21 pm

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby slee » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:15 pm

ForestDweller wrote:
slee wrote:n the documentary Food Inc(2008)? It covers how big agri / gov putting small farms out of business. Excellent documentary:


Thank you for the links. Reviewing the comments on the raid and the links there, I remain unclear as to just what was going on, in that first video. I personally have not yet watched all of Food, Inc. It's in my Netflix instant queue, I'll get to that ASAP. I am familiar with some of the material it is said to cover.


Also, checkout 'King Corn' documentary.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:07 am

ForestDweller wrote:[...]the ammonia doused product[...]

Is it considered "dousing" if it isn't in liquid form? I think you're characterizing what's actually done.

A puff of ammonia gas would be a simple and effective way to alter the ph and thus kill any harmful bacteria that are present. This prevents the kinds of lethal bacterial outbreaks the EU has seen. Are you suggesting that harmful bacteria shouldn't be eliminated?

Readers should also note that the ammonia gas process is only specific to one supplier of the processed product. Other processors reduce ph in order to kill harmful bacteria.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:12 am

ForestDweller wrote:The news article also says "Foshee says it is more like gelatin and not nutritious as ground beef because the protein comes mostly from connective tissue, not muscle meat.
“[It will] fill you up, but won’t do any good,” Foshee said."

How's that work? Is the protein in connective tissue somehow devoid of certain amino acids? Is it digested or are the amino acids within connective tissue protein utilized differently by the body?

I'm skeptical of these claims.

Unless connective tissue simply doesn't provide certain critical amino acids this sounds like pure bollocks. All proteins are digested the same way. Your body breaks them down to their component amino acids and those are then utilized to manufacture new proteins. Are there any amino acids from the connective tissue proteins that are unusable? If not, then the connective tissue proteins are nutritious, just like any other protein. Right?

ForestDweller wrote:Does this not suggest though, that pound for pound, ground beef with this processed additive, is less nutritious than the ground beef without it?

See my questions above. You'll have to explain exactly how the amino acids contained in connective tissue proteins are less nutritious than the amino acids in muscle tissue proteins.


Return to “SKEPTIC Magazine: Letters & Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest