For example, nobody even cares to agree that organic food has significantly lower pesticide residues, which I think is a pretty agreeable positive effect of organic produce, and one of the cornerstones of the argument for organic foods. This affects not only the health of consumers (around which there can be an absolutely healthy debate despite the fact that less poison is probably almost always better here), but also impacts the environmental footprint of farming.
There are also loads of straw-man arguments, which further undermines the trust in the credibility of the responders. The OP never denied that eating more fruits and vegetables - organic or not - is better than eating none at all. All that the paper did was publishing findings about the differences between organic and non-organic produce. I don't think antioxidants or phenolic compounds were framed as essential nutrients, and besides that non-essential nutrients do have effects on the consumer's wellbeing and health as well.
A truly unbiased response would feel more balanced. It would welcome certain findings, rounding out the picture with additional facts that might change certain conclusions drawn from the data, and add contradicting data found on a similar scale of research to the conversation. Such a straight and drastic dismissals of the paper in its entirety, however, based on carefully selected details, feels motivated by external factors beyond science or neutral dialog.
The smaller means you can't produce as many per acre.
The squishier means you lose more in shipping.
The Tastier often accompanies more nutritious.
The Pesticide issue is two fold. (same with herbicides) You could dust your plants with arsenic and call them Organic. That would work well, (and is used in certain organic farms often for strawberries) but the residue would be more harmful even in lower amounts than say a Coal-Tar Pesticide (basically an artificial flavor sprayed on to mimic the smell of a predator, or the flavor of something an insect doesn't like)
Organic != Safe
Traditional != Dangerous
My biggest concern is that we cannot produce enough food via organic farming to feed everyone. If we move too much of the market to Organics, we may end up like the places where 40% of their income goes to food, instead of 4% that we currently enjoy in the US.
My secondary concern is that too many people think "all-natural" or "organic" means safe. NightShade is an all natural herb. Doesn't mean I should brew tea of it and have it at bed time.
Given the level of diet-related illness in the US, much of it a result of ultra cheap (through subsidies) sugars and grains, I can't help but wonder, "if people were paying 25% of their paychecks for food, would they make better choices?"
Of course, the issue there has nothing to do with organics and everything to do with subsidies.
Food is already hard enough to get for many Americans.
Support this claim.
Too many? I have yet to meet a local-grown organic all-natural afficionado who wasn't convinced this means they are automagically eating healthy and safe produce [and possibly saving small underdog farmers' lives] to boot.
Very few people realise that most (or at least a lot) of the time organic and all-natural is just a marketing ploy.
Syngenta? Croplife? BASF?
In addition to the University of Newcastle as a funder, there are also these:
University College London, University of Bristol, University of Cambridge, University of East Anglia, University of Oxford
And these -
Institute of Mental Health, Institute of Physics (IOP), Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), Institution of Civil Engineers, Institution of Engineering and Technology (The IET), Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE)
And many more like -
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), National Institute for Health Research, National Nuclear Laboratory, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Nature
Are they all shills too?
The amount of anti-science junk regarding food production I see posted on HN is stunning given that this is supposed to be a group of intelligent rational people.
Hmm. I think this is important, and something I certainly overlooked in the initial hype.
0: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112648268/scientists-f...
What's interesting is the turf battles going on over what I would say are details vs the "news you can use."
Industrial agra => :P tasting + less desirable enviro impact.
Alt agra => less offputting, better enviro impact, but big hand waving around potential to be capable of scale and affordable for current and future population.
I get a sense there's this looming dread of having to deal with someone saying, "We can't survive (or will have a bad time) as a species if we sit back and slurp big agra, but we can't realistically keep everyone around/afford it if we try to help everyone eat 'correctly/safely'."
If the organic path is the moral path, is it OK to allow food costs to increase substantially? Is it OK to disallow the big agra calories and nutrients which likely enable subsistence for those unable to fight over spots for their Teslas and Priuses at Whole Foods?
In the exercise, the implicit goal is for students to recognize that the deer population shrinkage was a good and natural outcome leading to balance and that balance is good.
There are various problems with the exercise though; for example, we only see a few years of "balance" with the implication that it continues forever.
Replace wolves with food costs, and deer with humans. We would expect the Industrial Agra crowd to be "pro deer", and the Alternate Agra crowd to be "pro balance" while Industrial Agra itself is "pro wolf".
I find it interesting that if you're interested in rising human populations, then you're coupled to rising food prices no matter what. In other words, consumption of organics is non-linearly related to rising food prices and orthogonal to morality.
[1] http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/predator_prey_graphi...
It's difficult to have independent science in this day and age on matters where billions are at stake.
There is of course bias on the other side as well (e.g ideological), but nothing trumps actual, solid, business interests as a bias.
A lot of the experts are on the payroll of the food industry. They work directly on it, or their research is funded by it. The same way there was tons of tobacco industry sponsored studies in the seventies, that said it was all OK. The same way studies on sugar were downplayed.
A university (research funds aside) doesn't have the kind of multi-billion interests a whole industry have. Their researchers have other shit that can interfere with their research (e.g the need to churn out papers to stay afloat, or the desire to write a controversial paper to make their names known), but nothing that trumps hard multibillion monetary interests.
As an example, did your 90-year-old relatives eat Monstano-engineered "Round Up-Ready" corn for a majority of their lives? If not, then how can you claim that their lives have any bearing on the current situation?
I was thinking about this post this morning and wondering if the ultra-longevity origanic food types would cut off their testiciles if it was shown that you could squeeze out a few extra years of life if you did it early enough. This micro-managing of food eaten is obsessive, although I think half the people writing comments are actually conspiracy crazed about Monsanto and other big companies who must be out to get them (which is not to say that big companies are not screwing over people or small farms, they probably are).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_beef_scandal
Do we really need an article explaining how organic is not better for you?
Do people on HN really think that could be true? I'd like to think not.
If you go to an organic farmer and explain that this method using chemicals has been prove better and harmless through science they won't do it because they are fundamentalists.
I'm amazed by the tolerance of the organic religion by the scientific community.
There is a similar issue with GMO food. Everything out there might be safe, but there is little research done before new strains enter mass production so some caution is reasonable even without demonstrated harm.
PS: IMO, anything still considered safe after 30 years is probably ok but organic / non GMO is a reasonable catch all for that kind of a track record.
There are many unrelated types of compounds we are talking about here... from severe (and generally now banned) biocides like Methyl Bromide gas all the way to a light camomile tea solution.
It's like your dad saying "drugs are bad!" then proceeding to drink a six pack. Dose and type mean everything. Not all pesticides are dangerous to man nor the general environment.
