HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Science » Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience (Group) » The woo-woos are already ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:44 AM

The woo-woos are already attacking the Organic food study.

The study said there is no significant difference between organic and regular foods. The usual suspects immediately started the cries of "Monsanto Propaganda!!!"

8 replies, 1542 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply The woo-woos are already attacking the Organic food study. (Original post)
Odin2005 Sep 2012 OP
JoeyT Sep 2012 #1
BlueinOhio Sep 2012 #2
JackRiddler Sep 2012 #3
Marrah_G Oct 2012 #4
Taverner Oct 2012 #5
OrwellwasRight Oct 2012 #6
NotTheAristocracy Nov 2012 #7
Taverner Nov 2012 #8

Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 05:48 PM

1. It is Monsanto Propaganda(!!!)

Everyone knows the only reliable source for science on the internet is Natural News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:45 PM

2. Idea of organic

That the nutrition would be the same just without a side of pesticide and chemicals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueinOhio (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:59 PM

3. Right, it's not about the nutrient value.

It's about less health risk from pesticides, injected hormones, antibiotics, etc., lower ecological burden and risk, and striving to match output without input-intensive agriculture (density through complementary crops and attempt at permaculture). Anyway, "organic" labeling is a joke and organic is still at least as much aspirational as actual. Regional sourcing (reduced transport) needs to be as much a consideration in a truly ecological system as any other factor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:51 AM

4. It's not about nutritional value, which is what the study looked at

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 01:03 PM

5. Thing is Organic Growers NEVER said their food has more nutrients

 

It just has less pesticides and antibiotics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 06:33 PM

6. Yes, but the study was presented as a "debunk"

which is a typical RW tactic. Debunk a claim we never made in order to discredit the whole idea. If they sell the uninformed masses on the idea that there is no difference between organic foods and non-organic foods, they can reduce demand for organic foods and up the sales of factor farm created and GMO-laced whatever. So the study was a boon to the factory farm industry.

NPR got so many complaints about the story they had to go back the second day and explain that the claim that was "debunked" was a claim that nobody was making and to explain that the study neglected to look at environmental effects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 07:01 PM

7. Some organic farmer do say that their food has more nutrients

Here's a claim from the first web site that I found when searching for the Advantage of Organic Farming. It happened to be from an Australian site:

The nutritional value of food is largely a function of its vitamin and mineral content. In this regard, organically grown food is dramatically superior in mineral content to that grown by modern conventional methods. advantages and disadvantages organic farming

Because it fosters the life of the soil organic farming reaps the benefits soil life offers in greatly facilitated plant access to soil nutrients.


The study may have only looked at vitamins, not minerals. It may have only looked at the most common macro-nutrients, not micro-nutrients. It may have taken its food samples from farms that were recently converted to organic and had not restored the full balance of nutrients in the soil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NotTheAristocracy (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 09:39 PM

8. Then it should be treated as fraud nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread