Organic Shmorganic -- Conventional fruits and vegetables are perfectly healthy for kids.

[HuckleB]

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2014/01/organic_vs_conventional_produce_for_kids_you_don_t_need_to_fear_pesticides.html

"When my son was a baby, organic was a synonym for edible. If the apples I found at the grocery store weren’t certified, I wasn’t buying them. I knew that conventional produce could harbor traces of pesticides, and I’d read that pesticides could affect brain development. Sure, the details of this association were hazy—I didn’t know how many pesticides my son might ingest from Shoprite strawberries, nor did I know whether that amount would do him any harm. But in a way, it didn’t matter: Shelling out a bit more cash to minimize the risks, whatever they were, seemed worth it to me.

Fast-forward two years and my son is eating Shoprite strawberries for breakfast. I support the principles of organic farming, for sure, but it can be hard to consistently pay $7 for a pint of something he’ll go through in two days. Plus, I can’t help but wonder whether giving my son organic food really makes a difference to his health, considering that he’s been known to lick the bottom of his shoes, kiss my poop-sniffing dog, and eat crackers—someone else’s—off of the preschool floor.

Instead of continuing to wonder, I decided to dig into the literature and talk to toxicologists, horticulturists, risk experts, and nutritionists to find out whether the chemicals in conventionally farmed foods could truly pose a risk to my child. What I’ve discovered has totally surprised me—let’s just say I’m going to be a little more relaxed about what I serve kid No. 2.

...

What all this means for parents is that we should stop worrying so much about whether the apples we buy are organic or conventional—we should just start giving our kids more apples. (And, sure, wash them when you can.) The Environmental Working Group agrees: In the first sentence of the executive summary of its 2013 Shoppers Guide to Produce, the organization points out that “the health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure.” What’s more, irrational fears over conventionally farmed produce can introduce dangerous trade-offs. As University of Michigan decision psychologist Brian Zikmund-Fisher put it to me, “If you don’t feed your kid the ‘right strawberry,’ what do you feed him?” I’ve walked into markets with a hungry kid and been so afraid to buy the conventional apple that I’ve gotten him a snack pack of Annie’s Crackers instead. And I know there are parents who buy the Peter Rabbit Organics Fruit Pouches at Starbucks because they don’t know whether the bananas on display are organic. These aren’t smart moves. It is far, far better for your kids’ long-term health to get them in the habit of eating whole fruits and vegetables, regardless of what type of farm they came from, than to give them pretty much anything else to eat, no matter how organic or all-natural it may be."



As has been noted at DU by others, we need a progressive movement focused on science, scientific consensus and reality. Bad hyperbole by denialists does not serve that end. It fights that end, and it's not serving the people to fight that end.

[Archae]

1. "Organic" is a scam.

Gallon of milk from a big dairy - $3.50
Gallon of milk from "organic" company - $7.00

But the "Big Ag" condemnation squad will be along in a few minutes, "Everything natural is GOOD for you!"
You mean like those "natural" mushrooms full of poison?
Raw milk full of e-coli?
"Organic" stuff grown using infested manure as fertilizer?

(Munching on Cheetos while typing this...)

[Desert805]

3. And

Twinkies are vitamins!

[Archae]

4. I don't like Twinkies.

At least, not much.

I'll eat maybe two a year.

[SheilaT]

111. That many? And ou don't like them?

I haven't eaten a Twinkie since about 1956, because I don't like them. There's no point ever in eating something you don't like.

[Archae]

113. Like I said, not much.

[SheilaT]

115. I'm inclined to think that there are just too many things out

there that I do like to waste any time (or the calories) eating something I don't like much. Oh, well.

[HuckleB]

6. At least red herring does have some good nutrients!

[B2G]

7. I hope you brought enough for everyone.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. Everything in moderation

[kestrel91316]

20. Organics, unlike conventional produce, can only be grown with

composted manure (safe) and not raw manure (unsafe).

And I do know a thing or two about animal manure and zoonotic pathogens.

Whenever organics have turned up with fecal pathogens, it wasn't the organic practices at fault, it was contamination from conventional ag processes.

[HuckleB]

37. Links to support your claims, please?

Organic Pesticides: Not An Oxymoron
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron

Organic pesticides not always 'greener' choice, study finds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100622175510.htm

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming vs. Conventional Agriculture
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

[Luminous Animal]

45. You mean claims about the manure?

What does the National Organic Program (NOP) Rule mandate regarding manure use in organic farm practices?
No other agricultural regulation in the United States imposes such strict control on the use of manure.

The U.S. regulations for organic production require that raw animal manure must be composted unless it is applied to land used for a crop not intended for human consumption; or is incorporated into the soil not less than 120 days prior to the harvest of a product whose edible portion has direct contact with soil; or is incorporated into the soil not less than 90 days prior to the harvest of a product whose edible portion does not have direct contact with the soil surface or soil particles. See 7 CFR 205.203 (c)(1) and (2).

The requirements for making compost are regulated as well, and are designed to encourage soil health while minimizing risks to human health or the environment.

http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/manure.html

[HuckleB]

46. You're not clarifying the claim made above.

My links are being completely ignored.

[kestrel91316]

58. For starters:

http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/manure.html

Your beloved pesticide/coated produce is disgusting and should be completely banned. It's unhealthy for consumers AND farm workers AND the environment.

[HuckleB]

61. First, your link misses far wide, to be nice.

It doesn't address the fact you're ignoring the reality, which is pointed out in the links I've provided.

Second, your pointless, belief based hyperbole shows that you don't care what the evidence shows. You are here to preach, not to challenge yourself, and help humanity by going with the best evidence.

Good day.

[uppityperson]

36. Who, besides LG says "Everything natural is GOOD for you!" ?

[frwrfpos]

101. all I know is when I but factory farm milk I get issues

I dont have any food allergies but when I drink the cheap hormone laden milk I get severe GI issues.

I found an organic that is more expensive but It not only tastes better but the GI issues disappear completely.


Big AG companies that supply the cheap shit literally gives me the shits along with sour stomach.

Go right ahead and drink Big AG shit if you like. I will stick to my organic milk, thank you.

[HuckleB]

103. Check out...

science based medicine ... it's a great web site, in general, but if do search about the placebo and nocebo effects. You might just, well, save some money.

I'm guessing. And I could be wrong, but...

[frwrfpos]

105. I dont see a link in your reply

can you provide a link

[HuckleB]

106. Just Google the term I gave you.

The fact that you won't do that, explains everything.

SHEESH!!!!

[frwrfpos]

107. ???

I simply asked for a link. I thought that you were giving a website for me to look at. I didnt know I was supposed to google the term?

What the hell does that mean explains everything? I simply asked for a link to what you were referring to.


No need to be rude!

[HuckleB]

108. Derp.

Yeah, you could have done a quick Google search and found the website.

Instead you chose to play games.

That explains more than I need to know.

[Wilms]

2. What about organic popcorn?

[HuckleB]

5. What kind of butter?

Mmmmmmmmm.

[Archae]

9. Not that "butter flavor" stuff they use in movie theaters!

I hate that stuff.

[Wilms]

22. Not butter. Parkay!

[solarhydrocan]

25. The best- with no cholesterol and NO GMO

~ Vegan
~ Lactose-Free
~ Gluten-Free
~ Expeller-Pressed Oils
~ 0g Trans Fat
~ Casein-Free
~ Non-GMO
~ No Canola Oil
~ * See nutrition information for fat and saturated fat content.

[HuckleB]

34. Lot's of "No _____" there.

Also known as fear-mongering marketing.

I don't find such tactics to be ethical.

[LanternWaste]

44. I imagine accuracy in labeling may be perceived as a fear-mongering tactic

I imagine accuracy in labeling may be perceived as a fear-mongering tactic by many who pretend to know better.

[HuckleB]

47. What you call accuracy is marketing via fear-mongering.

It's one set of corporations playing games against another. It's time we stopped letting them to do that to us.

[SheilaT]

112. Rea; butter is not poison.

That said, I like my popcorn plain, with popcorn salt. Whatever chemical nastiness they use in movie theaters is awful.

[MattBaggins]

122. If you blindfolded 100 people

and stuck a spoonful of that stuff in their mouth; 99 of them would spit it back out.

[progressoid]

10. A reason to go "organic" is that is uses less resources (energy and water).

Organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soybeans as does conventional farming, but uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no pesticides, a review of a 22-year farming trial study concludes.

David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agriculture, concludes, "Organic farming offers real advantages for such crops as corn and soybeans." Pimentel is the lead author of a study that is published in the July issue of Bioscience (Vol. 55 : 7) analyzing the environmental, energy and economic costs and benefits of growing soybeans and corn organically versus conventionally. The study is a review of the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial, the longest running comparison of organic vs. conventional farming in the United States.

"Organic farming approaches for these crops not only use an average of 30 percent less fossil energy but also conserve more water in the soil, induce less erosion, maintain soil quality and conserve more biological resources than conventional farming does," Pimentel added.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/07/organic-farms-produce-same-yields-conventional-farms

[Archae]

13. A reason to NOT go organic...

Don't these mushrooms look tasty?

[magical thyme]

14. eating poisonous mushrooms has nothing to do with being organic

and everything to do with being poisonous mushrooms.

[cyberswede]

15. +1

[kestrel91316]

21. Ignore the RW troll.

[Retrograde]

16. They supposedly are!

I attended a lecture on toxic mushrooms last year. The speaker said that the (very few) people who consumed A. phalloides and live to talk about it claimed it was the best mushroom they ever had!

Myself, I'm not interested in trying - I'll stick with morels and store-bought Agaricus.

[HuckleB]

17. And back to the real world, and not just a single, out-of-context study.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

[progressoid]

50. To be clear

I'm not opposed to GMOs or pesticides (I'm pretty sure the Pringles I'm snacking on aren't "all natural" and I have a bottle of Roundup in the garage). Nor am I saying that organic (what ever that is) is the answer. It's not an either/or issue. It's going to take a cooperative effort from all sides.

I agree, organic won't sustain us. But let's be honest, our current system isn't sustainable either. The population grows and resources are finite. Something will have to change. Your link quotes that yield was reduced by 20%, it also admits that "input of fertilizer and energy was reduced by 34 to 53% and pesticide input by 97%". Even old school farmers around here are starting to see the benefits of changing their methods of production to a less fuel and fertilizer intensive system. Not only for cost considerations but for environmental reasons as well.

[HuckleB]

52. And some genetic practices may be helping to reduce those very problems.

Six Reasons Organic is NOT The Most Environmentally Friendly Way To Farm
http://appliedmythology.blogspot.no/2013/04/six-reasons-organic-is-not-most.html

[Denzil_DC]

57. Please explain how the post in that link is in any way "back to the real world,"

let alone "not just a single, out-of-context study."

I actually bothered to read it, and it reads like the "author" may be moonlighting from writing Daily Mail op-eds, and displays the referencing chops of Ann Coulter.

A number of commenters at that link who aren't just cheering rah-rah took it apart, in particular this one, who did more or less a point-by-point rebuttal:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/#comment-329

[HuckleB]

59. So you're response is to pretend that the piece is a single study?

And then you offer up a fiction-based "rebuttal?"

Come on. If you want to discuss this issues, show something that makes me know I won't be wasting my time.

Thank yoiu.

[Denzil_DC]

65. You seem to have a habit of obfuscating and trying to put words in people's mouths,

thereby constructing convenient strawmen, judging by your responses to others in this post's threads. Whatever that is, it's no reflection of a scientific approach.

How on earth is the information and questioning in that link of mine above a "fiction-based rebuttal"? I cited it as I'm not going to spend all night typing my own and reinventing the wheel to no great purpose on a subthread among many thousands on an internet forum. You made the claim that it's 'a fiction-based "rebuttal?", you need to back that claim up or fall foul of your own glaring double standards.

As for wasting time, your own fact-free "rebuttals" are the epitome. Witness this one:

You make many claims, but you don't to be able to support them.

This piece is well-researched, and backed by clear science, and a clear scientific consensus.

Noting that, I can only wonder why you would make such adamant claims that don't match with the reality of the piece.

Hmmmmm.

The only sane reply to that is "Sez you." Where's your support of your own claims?

The post you were replying to is entirely logical, and you failed to address any of its points, let alone rebut them. So remind me who's wasting whose time here?

[HuckleB]

66. I'm not the one who is obfuscating or creating strawmen.

You appear to think that using such terms suddenly makes your posts magical.

It doesn't work that way. You have to understand the topic and the terms.

Thanks for trying.

[Denzil_DC]

74. For someone who's hopping round these subthreads,

throwing around glib jibes that people aren't answering your questions while yourself studiously avoiding addressing the issues they've raised, you've shown little understanding of the topic yourself beyond linking to articles, some of which are out of date (the one above is from 2011 and its author's gotcha on rotenone is now out of date, for instance), if not opinion pieces dressed up as pop science. And you appear to expect people to accept them as gospel? Science doesn't work like that.

And yet again you've failed to engage beyond a glib response.

Tell me again who's wasting whose time?

[HuckleB]

77. I have posted solid stuff when it was needed.

I'm not going to waste my time on BS, however. If you want to be serious, then show.

[Denzil_DC]

81. Huh? Good grief.

Your last umpteen comments have been childish jibes, like the exchange you've just had with pwnom down below. Is that supposed to be "solid stuff"?

You posted a link to an article above that I responded to. You haven't in any way made any effort to defend its assertions beyond that. All you've done with each link you've posted to different people in this thread is post the link, apparently insist that it's the last word, then start with the nonsense jibes when people take issue. I posted a link to a rebuttal, which you dismissed as "fiction" with no evidence you even read it (it's quite long, and you must be one hell of a speedreader if you did in the gap between your posts), let alone any justification for labeling it "fiction."

In what world is that supposed to be persuasive, let alone scientific?

[HuckleB]

82. She posted the usual personal attack BS, and made claims that she couldn't support.

Why should I waste my time by responding with something more serious?

Hello?

[Denzil_DC]

84. "She posted the usual personal attack BS, and made claims that she couldn't support."

Y'know, you could benefit from a good long look in a mirror right around this time!

[HuckleB]

89. Nice cliche.

Unfortunately, you didn't use it in a situation where it was warranted.

Seriously, you could do to challenge your preconceived notions. There was a time when I bought into every piece of nonsense posted as a supposed rebuttal to this science based piece. I always challenge myself, however. Always. That does not mean that I suffer fools gladly, however.

[Denzil_DC]

90. I've come to the considered conclusion you're just trolling at this point. n/t EOF

[HuckleB]

92. So you're going to claim that I'm doing what you've been doing.

Classic anti-science routines you got there!

[HuckleB]

19. PS: Organic May Not Be So Sustainable

http://science.time.com/2012/04/26/whole-food-blues-why-organic-agriculture-may-not-be-so-sustainable/

[Zorra]

11. Environmental impact of pesticides

The environmental impact of pesticides consists of the effects of pesticides on non-target species. Over 98% of sprayed insecticides and 95% of herbicides reach a destination other than their target species, because they are sprayed or spread across entire agricultural fields.[1] Runoff can carry pesticides into aquatic environments while wind can carry them to other fields, grazing areas, human settlements and undeveloped areas, potentially affecting other species. Other problems emerge from poor production, transport and storage practices.[2] Over time, repeated application increases pest resistance, while its effects on other species can facilitate the pest's resurgence.[3]

Each pesticide or pesticide class comes with a specific set of environmental concerns. Such undesirable effects have led many pesticides to be banned, while regulations have limited and/or reduced the use of others. Over time, pesticides have generally become less persistent and more species-specific, reducing their environmental footprint. In addition the amounts of pesticides applied per hectare have declined, in some cases by 99%. However, the global spread of pesticide use, including the use of older/obsolete pesticides that have been banned in some jurisdictions, has increased overall.[4]
----
The effects of pesticides on human health depend on the toxicity of the chemical and the length and magnitude of exposure.[43] Farm workers and their families experience the greatest exposure to agricultural pesticides through direct contact. Every human contains pesticides in their fat cells.

Exposure effects can range from mild skin irritation to birth defects, tumors, genetic changes, blood and nerve disorders, endocrine disruption, coma or death.[43] Developmental effects have been associated with pesticides. Recent increases in childhood cancers in throughout North America, such as leukemia, may be a result of somatic cell mutations.[45] Insecticides targeted to disrupt insects can have harmful effects on mammalian nervous systems. Both chronic and acute alterations have been observed in exposees. DDT and its breakdown product DDE disturb estrogenic activity and possibly lead to breast cancer. Fetal DDT exposure reduces male penis size in animals and can produce undescended testicles. Pesticide can affect fetuses in early stages of development, in utero and even if a parent was exposed before conception. Reproductive disruption has the potential to occur by chemical reactivity and through structural changes.[46]

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

GMO! GMO! GO MONSANTO GO GO GO!

[HuckleB]

31. How does your wiki link address anything in the article linked in the OP?

[Zorra]

55. Oh, small things, like pesticides really are deadly poison and highly destructive to critical

ecosystems, and the environment of the planet in general, are not "perfectly healthy for kids" like the article claims, and the author of that propaganda article offers no proof that accumulation of ingested pesticide residue is not a significant threat to humans.

And, oh yeah, DDT and Parathion were "harmless to children" and were legal until they they were found not to be harmless and were made illegal.

Australia:

Parathion methyl products now illegal
4 September 2013

The Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) has advised producers that they can no longer use parathion methyl on their orchards or farms.

DEPI Senior Chemical Standards Officer Steven Field said the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) has cancelled the registration of all remaining parathion-methyl products for use in Australia.

"A two year phase out period ended on July 26, 2013, applied to the supply and use of existing stock of parathion-methyl products," Mr Field said.
snip---
"Continued use of parathion-methyl products after the July 2013 deadline may also result in treated fruit being classified as contaminated and is an offence under Section 52AA of the Act to sell contaminated produce.
http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/about-us/media-centre/media-releases/parathion-methyl-products-now-illegal

Child neurodevelopment
See also: Child development

Children are thought to be especially vulnerable to exposure to pesticide residues, especially if exposure occurs at critical windows of development. Infants and children consume higher amounts of food and water relative to their body-weight have higher surface area (i.e. skin surface) relative to their volume, and have a more permeable blood-brain barrier, and engage in behaviors like crawling and putting objects in their mouths, all of which can contribute to increased risks from exposure to pesticide residues through food or environmental routes.[25] Neurotoxins and other chemicals that originate from pesticides pose the biggest threat to the developing human brain and nervous system[citation needed]. Presence of pesticide metabolites in urine samples have been implicated in disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, behavioral and emotional problems, and delays in development[citation needed]. There is a lack of evidence of a direct cause-and-effect relationship between long-term, low-dose exposure to pesticide residues and neurological disease, partly because manufacturers are not always legally required to examine potential long-term threats

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

By the way, there was this correction at the end of the article:

Correction, Jan. 30, 2014: This article originally misstated that in none of the studies were the fruits and vegetables washed before testing. The USDA's Pesticide Data Program does rinse produce before residue testing.

Furthermore, the author is a former Global Products Manager for the Plastic Consumables Division of a huge biotechnology company called ABgene, which manufactures and sells molecular biology consumables to pharmaceutical industries.

Call me skeptical of articles in the MSM that appear to be propaganda for multi-national chemical corporations, and people who continually try to sell me corporatist marketing bullshit and call it science.

So, just curious; what are your thoughts these days on global warming/climate change?

[HuckleB]

56. In other words, you can't answer my question.

You're pushing a good old-fashioned Gish Gallop.

PS:

The environmental footprint of organic vs. conventional food
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/the-environmental-footprint-of-organic-vs-conventional-food/2012/09/14/40b16582-fb65-11e1-b2af-1f7d12fe907a_story.html

[Zorra]

62. Only because you can't, or refuse to, understand the answer. nt

[HuckleB]

63. I understand the fact that you have no answer very well.

What I'm wondering is why you lack curiosity. Why you refuse you challenge yourself in any way.

Why Organic Food Is Bad For The Environment
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/why_organic_food_bad_environment-2079

[Zorra]

67. When you find something that clearly isn't multinational corporate propaganda, I'll be impressed.

I don't lack curiosity, in fact, I'm wondering why you find it so incredibly important and necessary to push the products of mega agribusiness here.

[HuckleB]

68. I'm not pushing anything but good evidence.

Thus, uh, your claim about being curious goes wrong.

[Zorra]

85. It's good evidence that corporate bullshit for profit exists, for sure.

That article citing land use conveniently failed to mention that over 30% of the estimated 40% of land used for food production is pasture land used for livestock.

[HuckleB]

86. You seem to think that posting anti-science goofiness is worthy.

Just so you know, it's not. It's not progressive. It's anti-progressive.

[TransitJohn]

138. LOL

..

[hedgehog]

125. Thank you for doing the background check - it never occurred to me that the author

might have that kind of background!

[Berlum]

12. Oh Boy - another Woo Punching thread !!!

Kinda behind schedule, but what the Hell. Let's all pile on now, and support More Mutant Veggies & Chem Spraying !!! Yahooo !! So much fun to Punch Hippies (I mean woo).

[HuckleB]

18. Yes, of course, that's what it is.

Getting out the real information in the face of overwhelming Internet pushes of BS is "punching" someone. Hmm.

[Silent3]

42. When you think in such ridiculously black-and-white terms...

...and that same kind of cartoonish thinking typifies a lot of what gets called "woo", what do you expect?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

23. In my personal opinion (whatever that's worth),

The biggest reason people are opposed to GMOs boils down to one word: Monsanto. They're the biggest producer of GMO seeds, and have some very unsavory business practices. So, the emotional response is Monsanto=bad. GMO=Monsanto. GMO=Bad.

In actuality, there's nothing wrong with GMO food. We have been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years. Even today, not all genetic modifications are done in lab, they're done by cross-pollinating different breeds.

We do need to have a progressive movement focused more on science.

[RC]

28. It is not quite that simple.

When you genetic modify a plant to manufacture its own pesticides/insecticides, not only does that indiscriminately kill good insects, but the pesticides/insecticides being in every cell of the plant, including the parts we eat, are then ingested by us, when we eat that genitally contaminated food stuff. Another reason why they don't want their crops and the foods made from them, identified as GMO.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

29. They aren't putting pesticides/insectcides in plants....

They've made them stronger to withstand such things. There is NOTHING harmful about GMO crops. There is ZERO science to support there is anything harmful about them. Just lots of fancy pictures with words, and hacked together "documentary" propaganda. It's the left's equivalent to climate change denialists on the right.

[NobodyHere]

32. I heard a guy on Coast to Coast say GMOs are bad

So obviously GMOs.......ummmm nevermind.

[RC]

33. You are correct.

The are not putting pesticides/insecticides in plants....
They are modifying the plants to make those pesticides/insecticides themselves. Another problem with GMO is the mono-culture nature of GMO. Seasonal yields have already been wiped out by GMO resilient plant diseases.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

35. Monoculture is an issue in farming period...

But rotating crops prevents it. And you're starting to see more GMO farms do such.

And the plants don't make the perticides/insecticedes themselves. They've been made to be RESISTANT to certain pesticides/herbicides. Specifically, RoundUp. Which leaves the soil quickly, kills weeds in minutes, and is uber-effective. I have no issues with foods being resistant to an herbicide like RoundUp.

[RC]

39. Some GMO crops most definitely have been modified to make their own Round Up

Or rather the active ingredient in Round Up.
And you do not understand mono-culture either. When you and your neighbors accross the country, are all growing the same genetic crops, i.e., crops with no genetic diversity, because they all have the exact same source, that is mono-culture. Rotating crops from year to year when your neighbors are growing the same crops you are, because they are all listing to Monsanto tell them how they'll all get rich by growing GMO, is still mono-culture.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

41. RoundUp is poisonous. If it were in the plant, it would kill you...

Plants don't produce RoundUp. They are modified to be RESISTANT to RoundUp.

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

Quit spreading FUD.

[NickB79]

136. You're confusing BT pesticide with Round-Up herbicide

BT corn resists various corn borers by producing it's own BT toxin, a chemical found naturally in soil bacteria and licensed for use in organic farming.

It is entirely separate from Round-Up resistant corn.

As far as I know, there are NO plants that make their own Round-Up. Even if such a thing were possible, it's pointless, as Round-Up must be applied to the leaves of weed species, and unless there are corn stalks with built-in applicator nozzles to spray around them......

As for the concern about genetic diversity (or the lack thereof), it is a very valid concern. Unfortunately, even before GMO tech became commonplace, crop diversity was almost nil due to conventional hybrid crop techniques. We've been fucking up our crops genetic diversity long before we figured out how to splice genes across species lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_corn_leaf_blight#Importance

"The disease, which first appeared in the United States in 1968, reached epidemic status in 1970 and destroyed about 15% of the corn belt's crop production that year.[1] In 1970 the disease began in the southern United States and by mid-August had spread north to Minnesota and Maine. It is estimated that Illinois alone suffered a loss of 250 million bushels of corn to SCLB.[10] The monetary value of the lost corn crop is estimated at one billion US dollars.[1] In 1971 SCLB losses had basically disappeared. This was due to the return usage of normal cytoplasm corn, not as conducive weather, residues being buried, and planting early.[10] The SCLB epidemic highlighted the issue of genetic uniformity in monoculture crops, which allows for a greater likelihood of new pathogen races and host vulnerability.[1]"

[Chathamization]

110. Look up super weeds, which are actually a big problem. The fact that GMO pushers seem to be ignorant

of their problems is one of the reasons that I've become more uncomfortable with them.

[HuckleB]

120. Super weeds were an issue long before GMOs.

Pretending that GMOs are the problem with them is definitely ignorance.

[Chathamization]

123. NYT and Nature says GMOs are responsible. Ignorance doesn't mean "facts I don't like"

http://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-crops-1.12907

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/19/herbicide-resistant-super-weeds-increasingly-plaguing-farmers

[HuckleB]

127. That addresses a specific case. You are pretending that this only case.

Thus, you are the one ignoring the facts. You are trying to pick and choose because you don't want to acknowledge the full story.

Superweeds are not new, and they are not just an issue for GMOs.

[Chathamization]

131. Nature - "GM crops have bred superweeds: True"

Regarding super weeds, you said - "Pretending that GMOs are the problem with them is definitely ignorance." The articles clearly state otherwise:

Roundup — originally made by Monsanto but now also sold by others under the generic name glyphosate — has been little short of a miracle chemical for farmers. It kills a broad spectrum of weeds, is easy and safe to work with, and breaks down quickly, reducing its environmental impact.

Sales took off in the late 1990s, after Monsanto created its brand of Roundup Ready crops that were genetically modified to tolerate the chemical, allowing farmers to spray their fields to kill the weeds while leaving the crop unharmed. Today, Roundup Ready crops account for about 90 percent of the soybeans and 70 percent of the corn and cotton grown in the United States.

But farmers sprayed so much Roundup that weeds quickly evolved to survive it. “What we’re talking about here is Darwinian evolution in fast-forward,” Mike Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said.

All the articles I linked to show the issue with Roundup Ready crops being responsible for breading super weeds. Again, the fact that you ignore these facts speaks volumes.

[The_Commonist]

24. The way I see it - Organic food IS conventional.

GMOs and pesticides are NOT conventional, but something new.

[peacebird]

26. +1000

[uppityperson]

27. +++++++++++++++++++++

[HuckleB]

30. All food is pretty new, if you're going to look at it that way.

Of course, GMOs are actually studied, unlike most other forms of hybridization.

[hedgehog]

40. When studying something, oftentimes you can only determine the presence or absence of

something you are actually looking for. For example, those analyzing the water from the Elk River had to have some idea of what they were looking for or they wouldn't have found it. As it was, government agencies were unaware of the presence of a second similar chemical until they were told it was there.

DDT was a miracle chemical and certainly saved many lives as it was used to kill lice on crowds of refugees. It was a miracle chemical for the control of mosquitoes that carry malaria. However, it never occurred to those who first used it to consider other possible effects. Although some of the stories told about DDT use seem exaggerated, there does seem to be a kernel of truth to the stories.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636426/

Again, we have this Clinton era story that the use of GMO corn could harm the population of monarch butterflies:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120016

The source for the report is that great center of woo, Iowa State University.

The scientific method is the best means of answering questions about the reality around us, but we have to be humble enough to know that we don't have all the questions, let alone the answers.

[HuckleB]

48. A good red herring found its way to the board.

Tasty!

[Berlum]

49. Not by independent scientists. Corporations that control the patents control the studies

Corporate Science Sucks -- highly deceitful. Only a Corporate ProleBot would trust that Crap Science, or promote it.

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
"Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

[HuckleB]

53. Are you really going to push this old meme?

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html

[pnwmom]

71. Pesticides added to food are a new phenomenon. n/t

[HuckleB]

73. LOL!

I'm sure you'd love to go back to the age before vaccines and pesticides, but those who care about science and evidence are not so fond of such thoughts.

[pnwmom]

76. Organic foods have nothing to do with your vaccine obsession. n/t

[HuckleB]

78. LOL!

The topic does bring up your general anti-science obsession.

Can you stop your nonsense now? You never post anything of substance. But you keep posting.

Can you stop?

[pnwmom]

79. What do you post other than Big Pharma and Corporate Farm promos? n/t

[HuckleB]

80. I only post things that show what the science shows.

Apparently, that often cuts across your belief system, which is clearly anti science.

Thus, you go with: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit

[pnwmom]

83. Funny, I thought this was a left wing political site, not a Big Pharma/Farm site. n/t

[HuckleB]

91. When did left wing become synonymous with anti-science BS?

And it's funny to watch your persona go from concern troll to outright righteousness.

Yep!

[pnwmom]

93. Progressives are pro-environment, not anti-science.

Fortunately, there doesn't have to be a conflict, e.g., progressives accept the reality of climate change.

But sometimes science is used in a way that damages the environment, and then it has to be regulated and restrained. Every scientific advance isn't equally useful or beneficial.

[HuckleB]

94. Science-based evidence aims to protect the environment.

You are not choosing that road. You are going down some detour blindly.

[pnwmom]

95. Very true. But the existence of the atomic bomb demonstrates that sometimes science-based evidence

is used to produce products that harm the environment.

Science can be used for good or evil. Morally speaking, it is neutral.

[HuckleB]

96. Derp.

Name that logical fallacy.

BORING!

[Cha]

43. Thank you Commonist.. Organic food was here first..

"Traditional farming (of many particular kinds in different eras and places) was the original type of agriculture, and has been practiced for thousands of years. All traditional farming is now considered to be "organic farming" although at the time there were no known inorganic methods. For example, forest gardening, a fully organic food production system which dates from prehistoric times, is thought to be the world's oldest and most resilient agroecosystem.[1] After the industrial revolution had introduced inorganic methods, some of which were not well developed and had serious side effects, an organic movement began in the 1940s as a reaction to agriculture's growing reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. The history of this modern revival of organic farming dates back to the first half of the 20th century at a time when there was a growing reliance on these new synthetic, inorganic methods."

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

[pa28]

60. +1

[H2O Man]

38. I prefer orgasmic fruit

[hedgehog]

51. The article is an excellent example of bait-and-switch use of data to support a

conclusion.

The author states that organic production methods are better the environment and goes on to suggest that our uncontrolled exposure to a mixture of chemicals isn't good. (Presumably she is referring to petrochemicals in common use since the WWII era). Her stated reason for preferring conventional produce over organic produce is price; she thinks that organic produce costs too much. She proceeds to a discussion of the relative toxicity by weight of "natural" vs. synthetic pesticides. She also puts forth a supposition that although organic pesticides break down readily in the environment so that farmers must used them more often to achieve the same results as the use if synthetic pesticides, there must therefore be more residues left on organic produce. Read that again - the organic stuff doesn't last as long, so farmers must use it more often, so more is left on the final product. Even as an unsupported hypothesis, it doesn't make any sense.

More to the point, the use of Rotenone, the natural pesticide under discussion, is no long permitted in organic farming:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5100175

She discusses studies showing that some organic produce is contaminated with natural and synthetic pesticides, but offers no studies of side-by-side comparisons of levels in organic and conventional produce. She goes on to say that the level of contamination doesn't matter, since levels are within EPA standards, and besides no one has found problems associated with culumative exposures to multiple chemicals.

We then finish up with a flurry of bait and switch arguments:

- fruit and vegetables contain all sorts of chemicals anyways.

- fruit and vegetables are good for you, and their goodness will counteract any harm from pesticides.

- parents purchase fruit flavored sweets instead of organic fruits.

[HuckleB]

54. You make many claims, but you don't to be able to support them.

This piece is well-researched, and backed by clear science, and a clear scientific consensus.

Noting that, I can only wonder why you would make such adamant claims that don't match with the reality of the piece.

Hmmmmm.

[SidDithers]

64. DU rec...nt

Sid

[pnwmom]

69. This article misstates the issue, with the usual straw man argument.

"'In the first sentence of the executive summary of its 2013 Shoppers Guide to Produce, the organization points out that 'the health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure.' "

The debate is NOT about whether the health benefits of fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of the pesticide exposure. Yes, people should eat their fruits and vegetables.

The debate is whether fruits and vegetables without pesticides are healthier than those with pesticides. And the answer is still yes. That is why the government regulates pesticides and why we're supposed to wash fruit and vegetables and/or remove the skins.

[HuckleB]

70. There are no strawmen in this article.

It is supported by clear evidence.

If you're honest, you'll acknowledge that. SHEESH!

[pnwmom]

72. Some people wouldn't recognize a straw man if it punched them in the face. n/t

[HuckleB]

75. I'm quite sure you would not.

You've proven it many times over the years.

You've also shown that honesty is not your thing, as you are showing again here.

This article is solid, yet you pretend otherwise. It takes a lot of gall to do that.

[Pisces]

87. Whatever you paid hack. Feed it to your kids, I'll feed mine organic.

[HuckleB]

88. I'm sorry that science and evidence are not your thing.

I can't wait for my check! When do I get it?

PS: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit

[Pisces]

97. I'm sure it is the same science that said tobacco was safe for you. I'll use the logic of its poison

that kills bugs and weeds can't be good for the inside of my kids. You go ahead and believe big agra scientists.

See you later.

[HuckleB]

98. Awesome red herring!!

I couldn't have predicted that you would offer up that meaningless retort!

Oh, wait!

[Vashta Nerada]

99. I prefer my produce pesticide-free.

[HuckleB]

100. Well, good luck with that.

Organic pesticides not always 'greener' choice, study finds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100622175510.htm?utm_source=feedbu

[Vashta Nerada]

102. Yeah, the farm I buy my organic produce from doesn't use pesticides.

You seem so hell-bent on destroying the image of organic farming.

Why?

[HuckleB]

104. Nope.

I'm all about honesty.

The chances that your favorite doesn't actually use pesticides is almost zero.

But...

[Vashta Nerada]

109. Yeah, I volunteer there in the summer.

I know how the farm is run.

[HuckleB]

118. I call BS.

[MattBaggins]

126. HuckleB you are most likely dealing with people who are convinced that neem oil

is not a chemical just because it so called all natural.

[whatchamacallit]

114. Read the comments section

The corporate witch gets torched.

[HuckleB]

116. The comments section.

Where stupidity reigns supreme.

Umm. Your shill gambit response is called out.

Can you actually defend it?

[whatchamacallit]

117. For all intents and purposes your brilliant op is essentially a comments section

and the stupidity reigns from the first post.

[HuckleB]

119. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

Sorry, but your preconceived notions really are BS.

[whatchamacallit]

132. Give it up Huck

I know your ilk, everything outside the corporate line = woo. Y'all run around calling people "anti-science" as if all science is settled and you own it. Only a fool thinks that way. But then fools are always the loudest and most certain, aren't they?

[HuckleB]

145. No, you don't know my ilk.

You don't know anything about me.

You are pushing anti-science BS and ignoring the real world. Pushing ad hominem attacks does not change that.

If you are truly progressive, then challenge yourself. Challenge your views. I do it every day. Why don't you?

[G_j]

124. pesticide contamination of land and water never seems to be at issue in these discussions

that is the main reason I try to buy organic when possible.

[HuckleB]

128. I see you didn't read the article in the OP.

[G_j]

129. I read what you pasted

and the title of the article was about the health benefits/or not, for children consuming organic vs. non-organic foods.

So I thought I would mention my principle reason for consuming organic food.

[marions ghost]

130. I buy organic when possible

to support the development of farming methods that do not use harmful chemicals. It just makes for better, healthier food. And healthier farm workers. And healthier land, animals, insects etc. I don't have to write a fact-filled essay to support this. Everyone knows it. We will get to the day when it makes NO economic sense to use harmful toxic farming chemicals.

Why should we be having to defend chemicals in food? Could there possibly be a Big Agro agenda behind that?

[hedgehog]

133. this is what real science looks like:

Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children’s Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1367841/


Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685


Review on the main differences between organic and conventional plant-based foods

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02436.x/abstract


Consuming organic versus conventional vegetables: the effect on nutrient and contaminant intakes.
Hoefkens C, Sioen I, Baert K, De Meulenaer B, De Henauw S, Vandekinderen I, Devlieghere F, Opsomer A, Verbeke W, Van Camp J.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20691244


Fruit and Soil Quality of Organic and Conventional Strawberry Agroecosystems

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012346

Note that:

1. These are peer reviewed articles published in journals.

2. The articles describe exactly what the format of the study was, limitations, caveats.

3. References are foot noted.

4. The conclusions are very limited.

5. The credentials of the authors are listed, as are means of contacting them. Some of the articles declare any conflict of interest that may bias the results.

6. Some of these articles could be used in support of conventional agriculture, some in support of organic methods. This question is under study, and "science" hasn't reached an overriding conclusion.

[whatchamacallit]

135. Slate opinion piece trumps all of that

You anti-science fool!

[HuckleB]

143. The Slate piece actually to much more science.

Including full reviews. This poster simply cherry picked a few single studies without context.

Hmm.

You might want to look at how science really works.

[HuckleB]

141. Ah, single studies given out of context.

The classic cherry picking routine is noted. How shocking that you would offer it up. .

Not.

[hedgehog]

148. My posting was in no way meant to collect all the recent studies on the subject

but rather to illustrate the difference between publications by actual scientists as opposed to opinion pieces written by non-scientists.
I did note that the discussion of the relative benefits/hazards of organic vs conventional agriculture is on-going, and selected studies that are in apparent contradiction of each other as an illustration of this on-going discussion. I would hardly call that cherry-picking. I would apply that term to the article cited in the OP.

[Fumesucker]

134. If you really are pro-science you're not doing science any favors with your posting style

Rightly or wrongly these days I equate GMO with Monsanto business practices and I'm far from alone in that in the liberal world.

You can either address that perception rationally and reasonably or you can continue to insult and heckle anyone who dares to disagree with you in any way.

To imply that we fully understand all the possible ramifications of the genetic modifications being done to our food organisms seems to be a remarkably unscientific position.

[tenderfoot]

137. This OP is brought to you by Monsanto!

[marions ghost]

139. Sure smells like it

and notice the target marketing to young parents with kids. The segment of the population with the most mouths to feed, on shrinking incomes. Of course if you were in that category, you'd want to hear that cheaper chemical-laced foods are just as good for your children as organically grown.

The fact is the children of today are guinea pigs for a host of new chemical toxins and GMOS. GMO corn, soy, and canola are in everything. GMO corn-based propanediol is now used in many so-called "natural" deodorants, patented by Dupont as "Zemea" and touted as safer than petroleum-based products being absorbed directly into the body. Dupont wants to own "natural"--this alone tells you something....

http://www2.dupont.com/Renewably_Sourced_Materials/en_US/zemea.html

---
This advertising that tries to paint organic as a bad thing is all over the place. As if the younger generations could be convinced that "organic" is something passe, something their old parents believed in, ads implying that they are smarter not to buy into it. I see a lot of this type of advertising.

[HuckleB]

140. And the pointless shill gambit is offered up as a non response.

[tenderfoot]

142. It's not pointless if it's true.

[HuckleB]

144. And your proof that it's true is...?

[tenderfoot]

147. You're posting habits speak for themself - always promoting GMO's

rinse - repeat.

[randome]

146. Buy at Trader Joe's when possible.

Their prices are usually cheaper than Wal-Mart! I can think of only 2 things I buy there that are more expensive: wheat bread and cereal, both labeled 'organic' but they are the closest to what I prefer.

My daughters and I can taste the difference in both, too. Hard to describe but different.

But I agree with the overall point of the OP.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[SidDithers]

149. Kick...nt

Sid