HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » 4 Myths about Organic Foo...

Sun May 26, 2013, 01:04 AM

4 Myths about Organic Foods / Healthy Food Secrets


I think she gives a very balanced, thoughtful take on this. The science shows organic generally does not have more vitamins and minerals but some foods like apples and peaches etc. which require a lot of pesticides, may be safer if you buy organic.

42 replies, 5808 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 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply 4 Myths about Organic Foods / Healthy Food Secrets (Original post)
Quixote1818 May 2013 OP
KT2000 May 2013 #1
Warpy May 2013 #2
Quixote1818 May 2013 #3
obama4socialism May 2013 #6
Quixote1818 May 2013 #9
facismrising May 2013 #12
sulphurdunn May 2013 #32
Viva_La_Revolution May 2013 #20
Veilex May 2013 #22
Progressive dog May 2013 #26
Veilex May 2013 #33
Progressive dog May 2013 #37
Veilex May 2013 #38
Veilex May 2013 #39
Progressive dog May 2013 #40
Veilex May 2013 #41
Progressive dog May 2013 #42
Warpy May 2013 #23
facismrising May 2013 #4
Quixote1818 May 2013 #7
facismrising May 2013 #8
obama4socialism May 2013 #10
Quixote1818 May 2013 #11
facismrising May 2013 #13
Veilex May 2013 #35
Kali May 2013 #24
Cobalt Violet May 2013 #5
Crow73 May 2013 #30
Berlum May 2013 #14
Civilization2 May 2013 #16
fasttense May 2013 #15
KurtNYC May 2013 #17
Kali May 2013 #25
Snake Plissken May 2013 #18
fpasko May 2013 #19
hrmjustin May 2013 #21
dballance May 2013 #27
felix_numinous May 2013 #28
Crow73 May 2013 #29
Progressive dog May 2013 #31
DeSwiss May 2013 #34
CHOCOLATMIMOSA May 2013 #36

Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 01:08 AM

1. it is also about ingesting

pesticides. Our livers have to convert pesticides into something harmless. Some of the pesticides are no converted by the liver and are stored in our fat tissue. The will enter the blood stream when we are under extreme stress, dieting, pregnant, breast feeding etc. Those are usually the hormone-disrupting chemicals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #1)

Sun May 26, 2013, 01:21 AM

2. It's also about building and maintaining the soil

Organic methods do that and organic farmers typically see yields rise over what they had using commercial farming methods once the soil has been built back up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #2)

Sun May 26, 2013, 02:02 AM

3. Still the yields are about 25% lower than conventional farming

See link: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/world/organic-food-yield

Because of the lower yields, organic farming takes up a lot more land to produce the same amount of food and they put a huge amount of methane gas into the environment. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Not to mention, it's safety compared to regular farming is insignificant:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/09/organic-food-not-proven-healthier-or-safer-study-finds/#.UaGi_bLnbIU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #3)

Sun May 26, 2013, 02:21 AM

6. The stanford study you quote is biased considering STANFORD RECIEVES MONSANTO FUNDING

 

Stanford study cast into doubt due to recieving monetary support from Monsanto.

http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/09/stanfords-spin-on-organics-allegedly-tainted-by-biotechnology-funding/


Other research shows that Organic actually can give us higher yields.
http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/organicfarming.htm


Research Confirms Organic Farming Produces Higher Yields
A spate of new research has shown that organic farming actually yields better results than modern techniques when evaluated more holistically. A series of peer-reviewed papers published by the international journal, Nature, showed that organic methods for growing rice, corn and wheat all produced significantly higher yields—and at less the cost—than monoculture farms. And research at England’s Essex University has shown that farmers in India, Kenya, Brazil, Guatemala and Honduras have doubled or tripled their yields by switching to organic agriculture. Cuban farmers, who cannot access fertilizers and pesticides due to the U.S. embargo, have also realized greater yields by taking up organic farming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obama4socialism (Reply #6)

Sun May 26, 2013, 03:13 AM

9. I have yet to see a peer reviewed study

that suggests organic foods are better for you. I believe in Global Warming because I believe in science and there is plenty of it in science journals. Most organic food is from big companies not little farmers so I doubt if they are worried about Monsanto. Here on DU we believe in science, or at least we are suppose to. Until you can site a peer review study I really could care less what people "think" or what pro-organic websites think. Fact is the Stanford study WAS peer reviewed just like Global Warming science is peer reviewed. I do think there could be some risks from pesticides which is why I buy some organic foods even though the science on how dangerous conventional pesticides are is really not that conclusive.

Looked all over for your Essex study in peer review journals and could not find it. However I did find this: http://www.sfiar.ch/fileadmin/documents/recommend_dubock_field_crops_research.pdf

Here is another peer reviewed study that says organic farming can only produce about 50% to 100% of regular farming. However it does suggest in time organic farming might catch up with regular farming yields: http://www.pigbusiness.co.uk/pdfs/Soil-Association-Can-Organic-feed-the-World.pdf

More here as well: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120425140114.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #9)

Sun May 26, 2013, 03:32 AM

12. Why repeat what has been proven to be wrong? If biased studies make it through the peer review

 

process, OBVIOUSLY THE PROCESS IS NOT THE GOLD STANDARD IT USED TO BE.

Stanford received monsanto funding, a lot of it. If the process worked and wanted to maintain respectability, it would reject any studies from institutes that receive funding that cast's into doubt the objectivity of the conslusions. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN HERE. MONSANTO FUNDING OF STANFORD WAS NOT QUESTIONED, AT ALL.

But hey, if you want to reject learning anything new simply because it is not subjectively researched and heavily influenced by corporations that you trust, thats your right. Don't expect everyone else to value subjective evidence as you choose to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to facismrising (Reply #12)

Sun May 26, 2013, 06:07 PM

32. While most public attention

 

has been focused on the privatization of K12 public schools, little concern has arisen over the corporate takeover of higher learning, particularly at the top 100 public and private colleges and universities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #9)

Sun May 26, 2013, 10:40 AM

20. I garden organically, and I have more and tastier produce than my neighbors who use miracle grow

they get lots of big green plants with a few large bland tomatoes, I get plants that look a bit scrawnier, but put out twice as much produce. smaller and uglier than theirs, but the taste is better.
Luckily, the older generation that insisted on pesticides and chemical fertilizers are getting too old to garden, and the younger generations are taking over. My backyard touches 4 other backyards. The ones to the right and right-side back (and mine) are organic, we don't spray for anything. We have tons of bugs, birds and critters. the two yards that still spray look great, all tidy and manicured.. but no bugs and no birds hanging out in their trees. And I get no grapes from my vines because one of them still insists on spraying the blackberries every year, and I get to watch my grape leaves shrivel and die. We've offered to come over and pull them for him instead, but he says this is 'easier'.
If you just pay attention to the growing things around you, you don't need any 'peer-reviewed' article to tell you what's up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #9)

Sun May 26, 2013, 12:38 PM

22. There are over 120 peer reviewed studies here...

 

dealing with food and its organic aspects. If you continue to claim "I have yet to see a peer reviewed study
that suggests organic foods are better for you", then you've chosen to be willfully ignorant.
http://www.organicag.org/organic/index.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #22)

Sun May 26, 2013, 01:24 PM

26. That's true but quick review says they don't all suggest

that organic foods are better for you.
The first one I looked at claims higher phenolics for non-organic tomatoes vs better flavor for organic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #26)

Sun May 26, 2013, 08:44 PM

33. Science is rarely black and white. Phenols have been extolled for their virtues, but some would argue

 

a healthy (Organic) plant provides more complete nutrients as opposed to having just higher phenolic compounds. One could go either way with that discussion.

This, however, was more about showing there is a breadth of arguments to be had... as opposed to the notion that pro organic arguments don't exist... which is plainly false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #33)

Tue May 28, 2013, 09:26 AM

37. science is usually tending toward black and white, that's the point

Pro organic arguments exist, but many pro organic arguments have little or no basis in science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #37)


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #37)

Tue May 28, 2013, 05:02 PM

39. Your right, in that science does try to define everything it can (The black and white analogy)...

 

science by its very nature is inquisitive and seeks to quantitatively analyze everything it can. A great example, is actually one you posted; there is debate over if higher phenolic compounds within non-organic foods are of higher value than foods organically grown. I suspect the answer is something akin to "It depends".

For example: there is a type of rice referred to as "Golden rice" that has been genetically modified. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dna/pop_genetic_gallery/page3.html) The modification increased beta carotene compounds within the rice. This is seen by some as a potential life saver for some nations. Others are skeptical of the potential benefits of this non-organically grown, highly modified food. The potential is significant... but so are the questions.

In another case a two-year study led by John Reganold of Washington State University provided side-by-side comparisons of organic and conventional strawberry farms, showing organic farms produced more flavorful and nutritious berries while promoting healthier and more genetically diverse soils. The study was published Sept. 1, 2010, in the peer-reviewed online journal PLoS One: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012346. While the food may be better for you, the question of cost comes into play. How much more does it cost to grow organically? Is it worth it in the end?

Both studies deal with food. The first was grown using considerably non organic methods and is thought, by some, to be a threat to biodiversity due to its genetically altered state. The second is being hailed as "myth shattering" by some and a waste of money by others. For my part, I'd rather do what is in the best interest of the environment and personal long-term health. To that end, the organic method seems to be more environmentally friendly and the food may have more nutrient.
Here are another 19 scientific studies in support of organics versus non organics: http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html.

As to your statement that many pro organic arguments little or no basis in science, I would posit that very statement with regard to non-organics being overall better than organics. You are, of course, welcome to provide evidence to the contrary. I would gladly look over whatever you have to offer.

Regardless of which way you lean on the argument, the one thing that holds true is this: More non-biased, scientific research needs to be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #39)

Tue May 28, 2013, 05:41 PM

40. Fact is, since farmers have moved away from organic methods

each farmer has been able to feed more people and yields have increased. Fact is, organic produce costs more than produce grown with non-organic methods.
As far as science, I agree that there is very little scientific proof of nutrients or yield in either direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #40)

Tue May 28, 2013, 07:53 PM

41. "I agree that there is very little scientific proof of nutrients or yield in either direction"...

 

Except that I did not state that and I do not agree...
There is a plethora of evidence out there. Whether or not you choose to accept it as "proof" is entirely up to you.
However, your inclination is just to state opinion, with not substantiation, and you've clearly chosen to be willfully ignorant of the facts provided... our conversation is done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #41)

Tue May 28, 2013, 08:04 PM

42. So where's the beef, it's not in your 120 studies

You quote studies to prove your point that don't prove your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #3)

Sun May 26, 2013, 12:51 PM

23. Um, not quite

The methane comes from the decomposition of animal waste--manure and has to be considered in the same light as CO2 from non fossil fuel, non contributory to greenhouse gases because the gases will be fixed in the next generation of plants and animals in a continuous cycle.

The 25% lower yield is based on an estimate of how much is lost to massive pest infestation. Yields are actually higher when this doesn't occur as the soil continues to be built.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 02:02 AM

4. She is lying! No estrogenic pesticides plus organic food is HIGHER IN IMPORTANT NUTRIENTS

 

Excerpt from http://www.organic.org/articles/showarticle/article-46
Studies http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-organic-a-scam-nutrient-differences/#axzz2UNMOVQz9

http://www.dirtdoctor.com/Organic-Foods-Have-More-Nutrients_vq3656.htm



"There is mounting evidence that organically grown foods generate more nutrients and fewer nitrates. In a review of 400 published papers comparing organic and nonorganic foods, Soil Association Certification Ltd. Of the United Kingdom reported that organic crops were higher in essential minerals, phytonutrients, and vitamin C. Phytonutrients are plant compounds other than vitamins and minerals (such as enzymes, antioxidants, bioflavonoids).

In a 2002 University of Missouri study, chemists were shocked to discover that the smaller organically grown oranges delivered 30 percent more vitamin C than the large conventionally grown ones. Certified nutritionist Virginia Worthington found that a serving of organic lettuce, spinach, carrots, potatoes, and cabbage provided the recommended daily intake of vitamin C. but not so for the same veggies grown by conventional farming. Worthington reported that organically grown fruits and vegetables outpaced their conventional counterparts with as much as 27 per cent more vitamin C, 21.1 percent more iron, 29.3 percent more magnesium, 13.6 percent more phosphorus, and 18 percent more polyphenols. Polyphenols are a group of plant compounds such as bioflavonoids, flavanols, and pycnogenols. They are anti-inflammatory and have a wide range of health benefits, including protection against allergies, arthritis, heart disease, cancer and more. The organics also showed 15.1 percent fewer nitrates and heavy metals than the conventional foods

Meats

f you enjoy your meats but are concerned with higher quality with lower fat content, choose organic. The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences studied thousands of cattle, sheep, and pigs and found that the organically raised animals had fewer health problems, better growth and fertility, and lower fat content than animals fed conventional feed.

Buy organic meats if you want to steer clear of “mad cow disease.” You would be astonished at what they put in conventionally raised cattle feed: horse protein, tallow, blood products, pork remainders, poultry brain, spinal cord, and manure—quite an obnoxious diet, especially for a vegetarian animal that has been traditionally raised on grain and grasses! Cattle brain and spinal tissue were eliminated from the U.S. feed in 1997 when they were suspected of causing mad cow disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy), a degenerative brain disease for cattle that has also been linked to a fatal human brain disease (Creutzfeldt-Jakob). The only beef in the United States that is free of this kind of feed and the potential it presents for mad cow disease is organic beef."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to facismrising (Reply #4)

Sun May 26, 2013, 02:22 AM

7. That study is bogus. Please post something from a science journal next time


It's not peer reviewed and did not use peer reviewed science: http://blog.timesunion.com/tablehopping/2233/food-fight-is-organic-produce-more-healthful/

Snip> Not so fast, says Joseph D. Rosen, emeritus professor of food science at Rutgers University and a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health.

Rosen found that data had been selected to prove the desired point. According to a press release, “he concluded that the conventional products were actually 2% more nutritious than the organic varieties.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #7)

Sun May 26, 2013, 02:34 AM

8. Stanford MONSANTO funded study gets in Journal, OTHERS THAT SHOW ORGANIC MORE NUTRIENT DENSE

 

Are waiting to get in a journal, nonetheless, they were conducted by prestigious colleges.
Heres another
http://nutritionresearchcenter.org/healthnews/organic-foods-contain-more-nutrients/

WHY should I hold journal accepted studies in HIGHER ESTEEM when the journals accept STUDIES PRODUCED BY SCHOOLS THAT HAVE OBVIOUS TIES TO MONSANTO??? Why should all other studies, studies by institutions that do not accept MONSANTO MONEY be rejected as intellectually inferior?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to facismrising (Reply #8)

Sun May 26, 2013, 03:14 AM

10. I can't believe we even pay attention to the so called "mainstream" reporting anymore. They

 

are pretty much all corruptly connected to huge corporations. Stanford with this one was heavily influenced by Monsanto, after all, ya can't bite the hand that feeds you.

Sad, very sad. Good thing our intuition tells us that organic is better, and GMO's are bad. Our bees are disappearing, our food is covered with estrogenic pesticides and our soil is depleted because of modern farming.

Getting back to the basics, organic high yield soil replenishing farming, is just what mother nature wants us to do!

Great post. Nice to see you aren't fooled by the corrupt reporting funded by MONSANTO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to facismrising (Reply #8)

Sun May 26, 2013, 03:18 AM

11. You mean pro-organic organizations tied the study to Monsanto


Doesn't men it's true. Sounds like Oil Companies saying Peer Review of Global Warming is all funded by Al Gore. Fact is Peer Review is Peer Review. It's extremely hard to get something published in any area of science Backed by Monsanto or not (probably not) it still had to go through a very stringent peer review process to get published. That means experts from all over the world looked it over and put their reputations on the line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #11)

Sun May 26, 2013, 03:41 AM

13. You like subjective research, the rest of us don't!

 

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/13-5

We were not one bit surprised to find that the agribusiness giant Cargill, the world’s largest agricultural business enterprise, and foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which have deep ties to agricultural chemical and biotechnology corporations like Monsanto, have donated millions to Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, where some of the scientists who published this study are affiliates and fellows," said Charlotte Vallaeys, Food and Farm Policy Director at the Cornucopia Institute, a non-profit organic farm policy organization.

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/11/16/authors-stand-by-results-of-controversial-organic-food-study/
From stanford website
FOLLOW THE MONEY PEOPLE!
Another area that came under criticism was the source of funding for the research. Critics accused the authors of bias because of Stanford’s financial ties to agricultural companies like Cargill, Inc. and Monsanto Company.

Cargill and Monsanto are both agricultural giants in the food production industry. Both companies have reportedly donated to Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute (FSI). In particular, Cargill has worked with Stanford for 25 years in the Food, Security and the Environment (FSE) program. It has donated $3 million to the University, with another $2 million pledged. The Center for Health Policy, with which Bravata and Smith-Spangler are affiliated, is part of FSI.

However, the Stanford team asserts that neither the FSI nor the money that Cargill donated to FSE was directly associated with any of the research conducted for the study.

“We did not have anything to do with this study,” said FSE Director Rosamond Naylor. “Cargill does not support any of our research projects. They support just the base funding…for running the operation.”

Nonetheless, critics like health advocate and journalist Anthony Gucciardi created a Change.org petition titled “Retract the Flawed ‘Organic Study’ Linked to Big Tobacco and Pro-GMO Corps” calling for the retraction of the study and a review of the findings by a third party. This petition currently has over 6,700 signatures.

Further criticism of the meta-analysis method pointed out the link between Olkin and Big Tobacco companies. The petition alleges that Olkin worked with Big Tobacco companies in the past that used meta-analysis to skew data on the health effects of cigarettes. Due to this precedent, the Change.org petition described the meta-analysis method as a “a way to lie with statistics.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #7)


Response to facismrising (Reply #4)

Sun May 26, 2013, 01:02 PM

24. your assertions about cattle feed have caused me to conclude you have no credibility for this topic

have we met before? hmmmm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 02:20 AM

5. organic is non-GMO.

She doesn't get into the gmo thing at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cobalt Violet (Reply #5)

Sun May 26, 2013, 03:19 PM

30. That isn't a winning argument.

 

She can't bring up GMO that would defeat this shell-Monsanto PR campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 05:13 AM

14. This is classic Straw Man* crapola

Organics has never distinguished itself by claiming it has more minerals and vitamins. Thus, her whole premise is false on that score. It is not and never was a "myth."

Organics has claimed -- accurately -- that it was (and is) free of the vast batch of poisonous chemicals that infest many of the foods served up by the industrial system. As everyone should know, medical science shows resounding evidence about the quantity and the impact of these chemicals which have built up so intensely and damagingly in human bodies over the last 40 years.

That's not a 'myth' anyone can bust with a stanking straw man, it's a big fat freaking fact.

* A straw man is a type of argument -- an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man",

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #14)

Sun May 26, 2013, 08:20 AM

16. Yup you nailed it! The argument is flawed; Organic is BETTER!

 

I have heard this line of BS parroted in the media,. I immediately said the same thing "who ever made this claim of being more nutritious?" It is a clear Straw Man argument designed to confuse simple people and delude the real issues. Monsanto and the petro-chem corporate farming industry is destroying land water and air, poisoning people and killing off the bees.

Organic food is better for you, since it contains much less poison, and is not been genetically modified so corporations can make claims of ownership over the seeds. The idea of living things being intellectual property is ridiculous. GMOs and pesticides are corporate tools of profit and control and produce inferior and poisoned foods.

Organic food is better for us because when we eat it you are supporting the building up of the soil in sustainable ways, not the killing of the soil, and petroleum grown mono-crops the corporations use to take sort-term profits, leaving a scorched dead earth when they are gone. Small diverse organic farms are safer and more resistant to climate change, and pests/diseases. Chemically maintained mono-crops are corporate ideology at its worst, they produce lots of inferior food in the sort term for quick profits, and create a poisoned and degenerated land for the long term. short term gain for profit, while stealing from the future.

Organic food tastes better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 06:34 AM

15. And yet they leave out important aspects of the Cargill funded study.

 

Like the pesticide levels in your blood from eating conventionally grown, chemical laden, fruits and vegetables. Did you know everyone tested in their study had pesticide levels in their blood? How high are your pesticide levels? Those who ate organic foods had LOWER PESTICIDE levels. Even the Monsanto study admitted that. That alone is reason to celebrate organic foods.

"The study also downplayed higher levels of omega-3's, as well as lower levels of pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria found in organic compared to conventional foods." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/stanford-organics-study-public-health_n_1880441.html

Let's face it, big industrial agriculture is threatened by organic foods. They are afraid of losing market share and must ridicule organics to get back that market share. Big Ag has great difficulties growing real organic foods. Their entire system is based on petroleums, defoliates and pesticides. They can't wait until they lose most of their market share to start smearing organic foods.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 09:01 AM

17. Her 4 mythical myths destroyed

1. The main advantage of organic is that it lacks the neurotoxins and other poisons sprayed on conventional produce.

2. Even this straw man argument about organic not being more nutritious is flawed. A recent Brazilian study found that organically grown tomatoes are higher in anti-oxidants and vitamin C than conventionally grown tomatoes.

http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2013/02/are-organic-foods-more-nutritious-tomato-study-adds-debate

3. "We're not sure if organic foods ALWAYS taste better" -- WTF? She seems to be really stretching for this one. How do you declare something a myth and then say you 'aren't sure' ?! Perhaps it is the neurotoxins in her conventional food. And I love her line about how food may have been "on a plane for a really long time."

4. "Pestilized" ?? This word does not exist, nor does her credibility at this point. "Foods that don't need to be purchased organically" -- her grammar makes George Bush sound like Shakespeare.

5. When you buy organic produce you are NOT buying the end product of Dow/Monsanto/Cargill's pesticide system. You are supporting pesticide free growers of whatever size. Part of the appeal of organic food is the reduced use of petro chemicals and she ignores this.

I don't understand how the OP claims to be all about science and then puts this unqualified fad diet guru up as an expert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KurtNYC (Reply #17)

Sun May 26, 2013, 01:06 PM

25. yeah - that "pestilized" made me go

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 09:36 AM

18. This is obviously not a clear cut black and white issue

Of course consuming food with the least amount of added chemicals and processing is desirable, but the term organic has become a watered down marketing term to increase profits.

A truck driver I know occasionally transports produce from Florida to New England. One shipment of 'organic' tomatoes he delivered were sprayed with a clear liquid that smelled like kerosene prior to being loaded onto his truck, they were green when they left Florida and were red by time they were delivered to a distribution facility in Connecticut. I'm sure the liquid they were sprayed with falls under the umbrella of 'organic', but is it healthy for you? I doubt it.


I think the key is to eat whatever is in season locally and try to buy it from a local producers whenever possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 10:38 AM

19. organic is better

It is interesting to note that many of these people who put out these studies, reports, eat organics themselves. In fact, the cafeteria at Monsanto HQ, only serves organic foods. I wonder why.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fpasko (Reply #19)

Sun May 26, 2013, 11:19 AM

21. Welcome to DU my friend!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fpasko (Reply #19)

Sun May 26, 2013, 02:19 PM

27. That Sounds's Interesting. Any Proof of Organic-only at Monsanto HQ.

 

Interesting statement bout the food in the Monsanto HQ. Do you have any links to proof that they only server organics? Sounds awfully suspicious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 02:35 PM

28. Suspicious timing, right after Monsanto March

--nice try. But I will believe my taste buds first. GMO foods taste like crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 03:13 PM

29. Thanks, but

 

you can keep the round-up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 03:33 PM

31. That made a lot of sense

There are organic pesticides which are probably dangerous for people to ingest. Nicotine sulfate is one. Neem oil is another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 08:57 PM

34. The presentation is glib and slick.....

 

...with a modicum of truthiness in it. It seemed to me to be designed for urbanites who've never grown anything before and therefore would be hard-pressed to gauge the truthfulness of the statements made therein. Howcast.com is a New York based media company that doesn't grow any food. They sell information for people. Including corporations. Always consider the source.

- These folks ain't no farmers.....

About Howcast Media, Inc.
Howcast empowers people with engaging, useful how-to information wherever, whenever they need to know how.

Known for high-quality content, Howcast streams tens of millions of videos every month across its multi-platform distribution network. With over three million downloads across iPhone, iPad, Android, and BlackBerry phones, Howcast is the #1 mobile app for instructional content -- wherever you are.

Launched in February of 2008 by a senior management team with deep roots in traditional and new media as well as technology, Howcast has become the leading source for instructional video content. With tens of thousands of short, helpful, high-quality videos to choose from, Howcast will help you with pretty much anything you need to know about; from How to Bake a Cake to How to Tie a Bow Tie, Howcast has you covered.

Contact Information:

Howcast Media, Inc.
518 Broadway, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10012
Phone: 212-625-2920
[email protected]

The Management Team
Jason Liebman, Co-Founder & CEO

In 2007, Jason Liebman cofounded Howcast with the goal of creating the largest—and highest quality—library of how-to videos on the web, providing users with the answer to almost any question, whenever, wherever they need to know how. Jason is also a cofounder of movements.org, a nonprofit organization that helps young people to effect nonviolent change around the world using 21st-century tools.

Before Howcast, Jason worked at Google on the YouTube, Google Video, and AdSense teams. Prior to Google, Jason was Executive Vice President of Sales and Business Development at Applied Semantics before it was acquired by Google in 2003—one of the largest acquisitions in Google's history. Jason began his career at Credit Suisse as an investment banker. A New York City native, Jason graduated from Duke University.

Alex Ellerson, COO & General Counsel

Alex Ellerson oversees operations at Howcast and is also the company's counsel. Prior to joining Howcast, Alex was the Head of Entertainment and Premium Content Partnerships for Google Video and YouTube. Before joining Google, Alex was the Senior Director of Business Development for Yahoo! Search. During his 7-year tenure at Yahoo!, Alex also held positions as the General Manager of Yahoo! Health and Director of Business Development for Yahoo!'s media group.

Earlier in his career, Alex was the COO and general counsel of CMJ until its acquisition in 1999. He was also an associate at the law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore and a law clerk to The Honorable Amalya L. Kearse (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).

Alex holds a JD from the Columbia University School of Law and graduated from Swarthmore College with a degree in English literature. He also serves as a member of the Programming Committee of the N.Y. Chapter of the U.S. Copyright Society.
Darlene Liebman, Co-Founder & Executive Producer, Vice President of Casting

Darlene is responsible for helping to find talented experts, filmmakers, and other creatives who make the vision of cool short-form videos a reality.

Before cofounding Howcast, Darlene produced short-form animated content at Nickelodeon and worked on the first season of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, the show that changed the face of Bravo. She began her career in New York's independent film industry, working on a variety of feature films, TV shows, and commercials.

Darlene was born and raised in Manhattan and loves to continue her explorations of New York City. She is a graduate of Lehigh University, serves on the advisory board for movements.org, and was named a top woman in technology in 2009 by Fast Company

http://info.howcast.com/about


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #34)

Mon May 27, 2013, 09:42 PM

36. very interesting discussion - thanks to all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread