EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 12:59 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:42 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1352
As for the "math trick" ..... this was a term used by a reporter from Huffington Post to describe the shortcomings of the analysis used. All one need do is read the links.

Quote:
No, it was a reference to how the data was presented. If you do not understand what is being said, how can you hope to hold a rational discussion on the subject?


It WAS referenced by the reporter who called it a "math trick". What is being said is all too clear. ](*,) In the case of the Stanford study, the tool came up short. This is clear.

Quote:
Yes, they called it a "math trick" but it was not related to a shortcoming with the analysis as you initially claimed, but it was related to how the results were presented, which is a huge difference.


IT absolutely WAS related to shortcomings in the analysis. The presentation was a downplay in language.


Quote:
To illustrate the misleading nature of the RD metric in more detail,consider the first study shown in the authors’ Figur 2. Four of 81 organic samples had a detectable residue, a 5% risk of contamination (“incidence”seems a more accurate term than “risk”). In the same study, 1354 of 4069 conventional samples
had a detectable residue, a risk or incidence of 33%. Thus the incidence is only 15% as high in the organic
samples compared to conventional samples (5%/33%), and in common, practical terminology we would
most likely say that there was an “85% lower risk or incidence” in the organic compared to the conventional
samples.But in the unfamiliar terminology of RD, Figure 2 shows only a “28% lower risk” (RD = 5% − 33%
=−28%). A similar analys is applies to the other studies in Figure 2 and to the authors’ summary RD across
the nine studies. Their seemingly unimpressive finding of “30% lower risk” corresponds to an overall 81%
lower risk or incidence of one or more pesticide residues in the organic samples compared to the conventional samples.

There's yet another 2 paragraphs which explain what the reporter from Huffington termed "a math trick", but I'll not quote it here as you are capable of reading.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:14 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5778
Location: USA
Quote:
Their seemingly unimpressive finding of “30% lower risk” corresponds to an overall 81%
lower risk or incidence of one or more pesticide residues in the organic samples compared to the conventional samples.


Wrong.

animal-friendly wrote:
There's yet another 2 paragraphs which explain what the reporter from Huffington termed "a math trick", but I'll not quote it here as you are capable of reading


As opposed to being capable of speaking to and performing some rather basic arithmetic?

33% = 0.33

5% = 0.05

0.33 - 0.05 = 0.28

0.28 = 28%. The difference is 0.28, not 28, not 85, not 85%. It is exactly 28 PERCENT.

The only math trick here is the one you and your sources are attempting to pull out of a hat by only working with half the data--the numerators--as opposed to the actual proportions.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:35 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
As for the "math trick" ..... this was a term used by a reporter from Huffington Post to describe the shortcomings of the analysis used. All one need do is read the links.

Quote:
No, it was a reference to how the data was presented. If you do not understand what is being said, how can you hope to hold a rational discussion on the subject?


It WAS referenced by the reporter who called it a "math trick". What is being said is all too clear. ](*,) In the case of the Stanford study, the tool came up short. This is clear.

Quote:
Yes, they called it a "math trick" but it was not related to a shortcoming with the analysis as you initially claimed, but it was related to how the results were presented, which is a huge difference.


IT absolutely WAS related to shortcomings in the analysis.


No it was not. The determination of the numbers of samples with pesticide residue was not flawed, the way they chose to represent the difference between organic and non-organic samples was the issue. That does not relate to the study but to how they present the results of that study.

Quote:
The presentation was a downplay in language.


Which does not make the study flawed in any way.

Quote:
To illustrate the misleading nature of the RD metric in more detail,consider the first study shown in the authors’ Figur 2. Four of 81 organic samples had a detectable residue, a 5% risk of contamination (“incidence”seems a more accurate term than “risk”). In the same study, 1354 of 4069 conventional samples
had a detectable residue, a risk or incidence of 33%. Thus the incidence is only 15% as high in the organic
samples compared to conventional samples (5%/33%), and in common, practical terminology we would
most likely say that there was an “85% lower risk or incidence” in the organic compared to the conventional
samples.But in the unfamiliar terminology of RD, Figure 2 shows only a “28% lower risk” (RD = 5% − 33%
=−28%). A similar analys is applies to the other studies in Figure 2 and to the authors’ summary RD across
the nine studies. Their seemingly unimpressive finding of “30% lower risk” corresponds to an overall 81%
lower risk or incidence of one or more pesticide residues in the organic samples compared to the conventional samples.

There's yet another 2 paragraphs which explain what the reporter from Huffington termed "a math trick", but I'll not quote it here as you are capable of reading.


And more than capable of understanding what I have already read. Out of 100 non-organic samples, on average 33 will have a detectable pesticide residue. Out of 100 of organic samples, on average 5 will have a detectable pesticide residue. That is the study results with no flaws.

Now, the question is what the percentage of decrease is between the two types. The study subtracted on from the other indicating a 28% drop, meaning that out of 100 samples, on average 28 fewer will show a detectable pesticide residue for organic over non-organic. The good doctor believed the reduction should have been presented as a percentage of the percentages. This is where the 81% decrease comes into play. It is stating that for every 100 samples showing a pesticide residue 81% fewer will be organic.

Both are valid and accurate uses of the data. The study felt couching the reduction as a number per purchase was more appropriate than a number per sample with residue.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:48 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1352
Quote:
I did note the reference to the Brandt study supposedly being better at qualification of the papers criteria for the meta-analysis which was then followed by a statement indicating the dataset between the two had significant overlap .... which would indicate either both were good or bad at that determination, but not that one was good and the other bad unless there is a double standerd being applied.


There was no double standard. Let's read what Brandt herself has to say on this issue:


Brandt wondered how the Stanford team, led by faculty from the School of Medicine and Center for Health Policy, could have found no difference in total flavanols between organic and conventional foods when her own results showed organics carried far more of the heart-healthy nutrient. Upon further inspection, she noticed that the team had actually calculated the difference in total flavonols, a different nutrient, and reported the result with the swap of an "o" for an "a".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... _ref=green

Many of the other nutrients Brandt analyzed and found to be greater in organics were also missing altogether from the new review, she noted. "The choices they made don't seem to make sense -- they seemed to include ones where the difference was smallest to begin with," said Brandt. "I'd like to know why they chose these and not others that were just as well-described in the same papers they included."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... _ref=green


Meanwhile, Brandt still awaits answers from an email she sent the Stanford team on Sept. 1, in which she expressed her concerns. "She eviscerated their methods," said Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at The Organic Center in Oregon, of the email.

And as for the math AND the misrepresentation:

..... the authors reported that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination compared to conventional fruits and vegetables. Not included in the publicly-available abstract or press release was the fact that pesticide residues were found in 7 percent of organics and 38 percent of conventional foods. In relative terms, that's a more impressive 81 percent difference.

"Come on, that's simple math," said Benbrook.


And more ...... (not that *more* and *more* and *more* is likely to create a smidgeon of difference in your mind!) ......

Quote:
Perhaps most interesting is the fact that of the 237 studies the team chose to include, only 17 looked at people. And only three addressed clinical health outcomes.


Maybe not fair to refer to tobacco industry funding ..... and Olkin probably has some integrity, although this study has raised suspicion in the minds of many ..... but

Quote:
"I think they did a disservice to public health," said Ken Cook, president of the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. "I don't think they did that because they were beholden to industry. They just didn't know what they were talking about."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:13 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
I did note the reference to the Brandt study supposedly being better at qualification of the papers criteria for the meta-analysis which was then followed by a statement indicating the dataset between the two had significant overlap .... which would indicate either both were good or bad at that determination, but not that one was good and the other bad unless there is a double standerd being applied.


There was no double standard. Let's read what Brandt herself has to say on this issue:

Brandt was not the one making the comparison of the qualification criteria of the papers supposedly being better but still having so many of the same papers included in both.


Quote:
Brandt wondered how the Stanford team, led by faculty from the School of Medicine and Center for Health Policy, could have found no difference in total flavanols between organic and conventional foods when her own results showed organics carried far more of the heart-healthy nutrient. Upon further inspection, she noticed that the team had actually calculated the difference in total flavonols, a different nutrient, and reported the result with the swap of an "o" for an "a".


This has nothing at all to do with the selection criteria supposedly being better for Brandt but still having the big overlap with the "poor" criteria paper.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... _ref=green

Quote:
Many of the other nutrients Brandt analyzed and found to be greater in organics were also missing altogether from the new review, she noted. "The choices they made don't seem to make sense -- they seemed to include ones where the difference was smallest to begin with," said Brandt. "I'd like to know why they chose these and not others that were just as well-described in the same papers they included."


Still nothing to show why the "better" inclusion criteria for the one paper resulted in such an overlap. You do understand what they meant when discussing the more robust qualifications for imclusion do you not?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... _ref=green


Quote:
Meanwhile, Brandt still awaits answers from an email she sent the Stanford team on Sept. 1, in which she expressed her concerns. "She eviscerated their methods," said Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at The Organic Center in Oregon, of the email.


I believe that is an opinion with more than a bit of bias included.

Quote:
And as for the math AND the misrepresentation:

..... the authors reported that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination compared to conventional fruits and vegetables. Not included in the publicly-available abstract or press release was the fact that pesticide residues were found in 7 percent of organics and 38 percent of conventional foods. In relative terms, that's a more impressive 81 percent difference.

"Come on, that's simple math," said Benbrook.


Yes it is simple math and what they stated was not wrong. When one complains of simple math one expects there to be an actual error and there was none in this case. There was an opinion as to how another might have stated the difference, but there seems to be more than a little bias in that opinion.

Quote:
And more ...... (not that *more* and *more* and *more* is likely to create a smidgeon of difference in your mind!) ......


Not unless there is an actual factual difference.

Quote:
Perhaps most interesting is the fact that of the 237 studies the team chose to include, only 17 looked at people. And only three addressed clinical health outcomes.


So that would mean Brandt used a similar breakdown since Benbrook had already commented on the large overlap in studies used in both studies. Remember? That is the point you tried to deflect in the beginning of this post. That goes farther to indicate the bias against the results is the larger driver than anything else.

Quote:
Maybe not fair to refer to tobacco industry funding ..... and Olkin probably has some integrity, although this study has raised suspicion in the minds of many ..... but

Quote:
"I think they did a disservice to public health," said Ken Cook, president of the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. "I don't think they did that because they were beholden to industry. They just didn't know what they were talking about."


Yet, it had similar results from other studies and made it through peer review to publication. Could it be the bias is what we are hearing in this statement? Seems probable to me.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:32 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1352
Done.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:32 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
I did not get the chance to point out the interesting points in the Huffpost link:

As questions mounted over the past week, it seemed Stanford had also provided all the ingredients for a lot of noise: Supporters of the $25 billion-plus organics industry were ready and willing to start digging up dirt.

The blogosphere is now filled with suspicions that Stanford downplayed the benefits of organic foods because they had received large donations from conventional agriculture giant Cargill. When questioned by The Huffington Post, Stanford officials denied any such link. The research itself received no external funding, and the Cargill money went to a department not directly involved in the research, said Lisa Lapin, a Stanford spokesperson.

At least some experts interviewed suggested that the industry money could still pose a subtle influence. And that pressure, or aura of accountability to a funding source, could then be easily hidden from the public.




It seems BOTH sides could be equally influenced by big money donations from a big money industry ...... :-




The Stanford researchers have acknowledged their review's limitations. "The reason this study has the notoriety it has is because people don't really recognize that all this study does is look at nutrients," said Olkin, adding the inherent problems in trying to combine, compare and contrast data from diverse studies.

"We tried to be really clear about when there was good evidence of a difference and good evidence of no difference, versus also being clear about when there was not good evidence of a difference," added Dr. Dena Bravata, senior researcher on the team.

But this subtlety may have been missed by the average reader of Bravata's quote in the press release, which was subsequently included in many news stories: "There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health."

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:10 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1352
Quote:
quote="Wayne Stollings"I did not get the chance to point out the interesting points in the Huffpost link:

As questions mounted over the past week, it seemed Stanford had also provided all the ingredients for a lot of noise: Supporters of the $25 billion-plus organics industry were ready and willing to start digging up dirt.


Why wouldn't they dig up dirt when there was evidently dirt to dig? This says nothing except the $25 billion organics industry has a bone to pick with big agri-business. Cargill alone is worth more than double than all the smaller organic enterprises are worth. So no. Both sides could not be equally influenced.

".... they had received large donations from conventional agriculture giant Cargill. When questioned by The Huffington Post, Stanford officials denied any such link. The research itself received no external funding, and the Cargill money went to a department not directly involved in the research, said Lisa Lapin, a Stanford spokesperson. At least some experts interviewed suggested that the industry money could still pose a subtle influence. And that pressure, or aura of accountability to a funding source, could then be easily hidden from the public.

I do not, for a moment, imagine the influence was subtle. When you have a giant company such as Cargill supporting a university, there is an influence. Period.

Quote:
"Stanford researchers had touted their independence by stating they had not received outside financial support for their study, but failed to delineate the close ties between their internal funding sources and industrialized agriculture and biotechnology interests."


http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/09/12-8

"Not surprisingly, the study’s glaring errors, both in understanding the important and complex differences between organic and conventional foods and in the researchers’ flawed choice of research methods, prompted organic advocates to look closely at financial ties between Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, which supports the researchers, and the chemical and agribusiness industry."

"We tried to be really clear about when there was good evidence of a difference and good evidence of no difference, versus also being clear about when there was not good evidence of a difference," added Dr. Dena Bravata, senior researcher on the team.

This is disingenuous to say the least. They did not try hard enough. Maybe they were just sloppy?

Quote:
"Many of the other nutrients Brandt analyzed and found to be greater in organics were also missing altogether from the new review, she noted. "The choices they made don't seem to make sense -- they seemed to include ones where the difference was smallest to begin with," said Brandt. "I'd like to know why they chose these and not others that were just as well-described in the same papers they included."


Quote:
"There was just no way that truly independent scientists with the expertise required to adequately answer such an important question would ignore the vast and growing body of scientific literature pointing to serious health risks from eating foods produced with synthetic chemicals," says Vallaeys.



Or maybe they just wanted to make sure the money keeps pouring in ....

"So 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."

"When the Stanford researchers left out any mention of pesticide residue impacts on human health, well-documented in a number of respected peer-reviewed studies, it immediately raised a red flag that Stanford's analysis was likely designed to favor the agribusiness corporations in their desperate attempts to convince an increasingly educated and skeptical public that pesticides are safe," says Vallaeys.

As an example, the Stanford researchers omitted a 2010 study published in the journal Pediatrics by researchers at the University of Montreal and Harvard, which found that children with higher urinary levels of organophosphate metabolites, breakdown products of commonly used insecticides that are prohibited in organic agriculture, were more likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

The Stanford study also omitted any acknowledgement of potential cancer risks from exposure to agricultural chemicals on conventional foods. This seems especially reprehensible to the scientists at Cornucopia in light of the 2009 President’s Cancer Panel report, which states: “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”

"Journalists failed to do due diligence to check the credibility of the Stanford study, ..... Wanting to be ahead of the news curve, reporters rushed out their stories on this study, over a holiday weekend, without seeking the expert advice of scientists who have studied the harmful effects of chemicals used in conventional food products and the documented advantages of an organic diet."

Stanford's spin was quickly and widely accepted by journalists without fact-checking and was rushed to the pages of major news outlets.

Additionally, the study did, in fact, concede a few positive attributes to organic foods, including the fact that organic produce has fewer pesticide residues; however, such facts were buried in the presentation of the research by the Stanford researchers and public relations staff and were not widely reported by major news sources.

The Stanford study *overlapped* the research of Brandt's but was, in the end, inferior.










.


.
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:17 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1352
Cargill is worth more than double of that of all the smaller organic enterprises combined?
No, that is not correct. The actual figures are much higher.

With $119.5 billion in revenues in its most recent fiscal year, ended May 31, Cargill is bigger by half than its nearest publicly held rival in the food production industry, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM, Fortune 500). If Cargill were public, it would have ranked No. 18 on this year's Fortune 500, between AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) and IBM (IBM, Fortune 500). Over the past decade, a period when the S&P 500's revenues have grown 31%, Cargill's sales have more than doubled.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/24/news/co ... /index.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:13 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
quote="Wayne Stollings"I did not get the chance to point out the interesting points in the Huffpost link:

As questions mounted over the past week, it seemed Stanford had also provided all the ingredients for a lot of noise: Supporters of the $25 billion-plus organics industry were ready and willing to start digging up dirt.


Why wouldn't they dig up dirt when there was evidently dirt to dig? This says nothing except the $25 billion organics industry has a bone to pick with big agri-business. Cargill alone is worth more than double than all the smaller organic enterprises are worth. So no. Both sides could not be equally influenced.


So, the perception of a smaller economic influence is "better"? That sounds very much like the statement about not trusting any limits on pesticide residue, but saying organic was safe because it had less. I beileve that is what is called a double standard.

As for the dirt, there was not much to be found or the assumption of some funding influence and the single grant request of the tobacco industry several decades ago would not have been the primary piles of dust found. The claims of incomplete range of studies fails because the range also applies to the studies they want to support. There are differences of opinion, but that is nothing new in science. There is a lot of hypocrisy being exhibited in this case by the supporters of organic products.

Quote:
".... they had received large donations from conventional agriculture giant Cargill. When questioned by The Huffington Post, Stanford officials denied any such link. The research itself received no external funding, and the Cargill money went to a department not directly involved in the research, said Lisa Lapin, a Stanford spokesperson. At least some experts interviewed suggested that the industry money could still pose a subtle influence. And that pressure, or aura of accountability to a funding source, could then be easily hidden from the public.

I do not, for a moment, imagine the influence was subtle. When you have a giant company such as Cargill supporting a university, there is an influence. Period.


That is all you have though an imagination. The influence of on large company can be offset by the organized influence of several smaller companies and you have given evidence of the organized aspect of the pro-organic groups.

Quote:
"Stanford researchers had touted their independence by stating they had not received outside financial support for their study, but failed to delineate the close ties between their internal funding sources and industrialized agriculture and biotechnology interests."


There are also close ties with other interests and industries, should those be a concern? Are any of them involved in the $25 billion dollar organics industry?

Quote:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/09/12-8

"Not surprisingly, the study’s glaring errors, both in understanding the important and complex differences between organic and conventional foods and in the researchers’ flawed choice of research methods, prompted organic advocates to look closely at financial ties between Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, which supports the researchers, and the chemical and agribusiness industry."


The methods were the same as the other meta-studies and used nearly the same dataset even though their qualification criteria was one of the "flawed" choices presented. That is an example of creating a question where none really exists and it is very similar to what is seen in the debates over evolution and climate change by those who oppose the real science.

Quote:
"We tried to be really clear about when there was good evidence of a difference and good evidence of no difference, versus also being clear about when there was not good evidence of a difference," added Dr. Dena Bravata, senior researcher on the team.

This is disingenuous to say the least. They did not try hard enough. Maybe they were just sloppy?


Or they are right. Given the quality of the evidence of their "flaws" I am beginning to believe they are more right and the critical bias is with those researcher trying to build up the organic brand.

Quote:
Quote:
"Many of the other nutrients Brandt analyzed and found to be greater in organics were also missing altogether from the new review, she noted. "The choices they made don't seem to make sense -- they seemed to include ones where the difference was smallest to begin with," said Brandt. "I'd like to know why they chose these and not others that were just as well-described in the same papers they included."


Quote:
"There was just no way that truly independent scientists with the expertise required to adequately answer such an important question would ignore the vast and growing body of scientific literature pointing to serious health risks from eating foods produced with synthetic chemicals," says Vallaeys.



Or maybe they just wanted to make sure the money keeps pouring in ....


That can be said of both sides. Where did the funding originate for the studies showing support for organic products? Would there be any more funding if it were determined they had influenced the results due to personal bias? That is sounding more and more like a real possibility in this case. Would a "truly independent scientist with the expertise required" really find the "vast and growing body of scientific literature"? I have found studies from others which supprt the Stanford paper, but not to support those who have spoken out in opposition. If it is only those few who are generating this body of literature, I would be very skeptical of their unbiased opinion.

Quote:
"So 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."


A six degrees of separation approach is just another version of the ad hominem fallacy.

Quote:
"When the Stanford researchers left out any mention of pesticide residue impacts on human health, well-documented in a number of respected peer-reviewed studies, it immediately raised a red flag that Stanford's analysis was likely designed to favor the agribusiness corporations in their desperate attempts to convince an increasingly educated and skeptical public that pesticides are safe," says Vallaeys.


So this means organic produsts pose a health risk to humans that should be referenced in the studies because there is a detectable residue on a signficant percentage of the products? If not, that would appear to be a hypocritical and biased stance.

Quote:
As an example, the Stanford researchers omitted a 2010 study published in the journal Pediatrics by researchers at the University of Montreal and Harvard, which found that children with higher urinary levels of organophosphate metabolites, breakdown products of commonly used insecticides that are prohibited in organic agriculture, were more likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.


Not really a surprise given the focus on the study was mainly nutritional, which seems to be lost in the attempt to smear it.

Quote:
The Stanford study also omitted any acknowledgement of potential cancer risks from exposure to agricultural chemicals on conventional foods. This seems especially reprehensible to the scientists at Cornucopia in light of the 2009 President’s Cancer Panel report, which states: “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”


Nor did they mention the risks from orgnaic products from exposure to agricultural chemicals and again this was probably due to the fact the focus was NUTRITIONAL.

Quote:
"Journalists failed to do due diligence to check the credibility of the Stanford study, ..... Wanting to be ahead of the news curve, reporters rushed out their stories on this study, over a holiday weekend, without seeking the expert advice of scientists who have studied the harmful effects of chemicals used in conventional food products and the documented advantages of an organic diet."


Not in the nutritional value of the products, though. Maybe they should have discussed the problems with the study not dealing with the increased cost of organic products limiting the ability of the poor to reap the benefits .... but wait the focus was nutritional and that benefit does not exist so the poor are no worse off in that aspect.

Quote:
Stanford's spin was quickly and widely accepted by journalists without fact-checking and was rushed to the pages of major news outlets.


There was no "spin" there was a statement of finding which has now been called spin by those attempting to actually spin the discussion.

Quote:
Additionally, the study did, in fact, concede a few positive attributes to organic foods, including the fact that organic produce has fewer pesticide residues; however, such facts were buried in the presentation of the research by the Stanford researchers and public relations staff and were not widely reported by major news sources.


But that must be incorrect given the flaws in the study, correct? No, that exhibits the bias used to determine the validtiy of the research. If you want to believe it, it is "good" and if you do not want to believe it, it is "bad".

Quote:
The Stanford study *overlapped* the research of Brandt's but was, in the end, inferior.


Based on the criteria listed above, of course.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:51 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1352
Quote:
Wayne Stollings
As questions mounted over the past week, it seemed Stanford had also provided all the ingredients for a lot of noise: Supporters of the $25 billion-plus organics industry were ready and willing to start digging up dirt.[/i]


Why wouldn't they dig up dirt when there was evidently dirt to dig? This says nothing except the $25 billion organics industry has a bone to pick with big agri-business. Cargill alone is worth more than double than all the smaller organic enterprises are worth. So no. Both sides could not be equally influenced.[/quote]

Quote:
So, the perception of a smaller economic influence is "better"? That sounds very much like the statement about not trusting any limits on pesticide residue, but saying organic was safe because it had less. I beileve that is what is called a double standard.


Organics ARE safer. The accepted levels of pesticide use in conventional agriculture is causing health problems. Did you miss this?

Quote:
As an example, the Stanford researchers omitted a 2010 study published in the journal Pediatrics by researchers at the University of Montreal and Harvard, which found that children with higher urinary levels of organophosphate metabolites, breakdown products of commonly used insecticides that are prohibited in organic agriculture, were more likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder


I know you didn't miss this:

"...the vast and growing body of scientific literature pointing to serious health risks from eating foods produced with synthetic chemicals,"

And there's no way you would have missed this either:

Quote:
2009 President’s Cancer Panel report, which states: “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”


So, yes, organics ARE safer exactly because they have significantly fewer pesticides. There is no double standard.

And what do you mean by a "perception" of a smaller economic influence? It's not a mere "perception"; it is a reality. All the organic businesses are worth only 1/5 of what Cargill is worth ..... and Cargill is only ONE of the giants. Also Cargill is a supporter of Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute, where [b]some of the scientists who published this study are affiliates and fellows."

Quote:
When entire news cycles are dominated by headlines built on a single university study, with editorials attempting to hammer in big-agri talking points, a lobbying effort is clearly afoot.


Quote:
The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) relies on support from its friends, as well as from national and international foundations and corporations, for the funding of the Institute's research, teaching and outreach activities. The Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). So who are these "friends," national and international foundations and corporations funding the research of FSI and its subsidiary, the Stanford Center for Health Policy?


Stanford's "friends" also include Bill and Melinda Gates. What are they worth and what are there ties to GMO's?
Please point out where some kind of mythical Giant Organics Corporation is involved? All the organic enterprises combined are just a drop in the bucket compared to Cargill and Bill and Linda Gates.

Quote:
There is a lot of hypocrisy being exhibited in this case by the supporters of organic products.


I haven't seen it.

Quote:
".... they had received large donations from conventional agriculture giant Cargill. When questioned by The Huffington Post, Stanford officials denied any such link. The research itself received no external funding, and the Cargill money went to a department not directly involved in the research, said Lisa Lapin, a Stanford spokesperson. At least some experts interviewed suggested that the industry money could still pose a subtle influence. And that pressure, or aura of accountability to a funding source, could then be easily hidden from the public.

Quote:
That is all you have though an imagination. The influence of on large company can be offset by the organized influence of several smaller companies and you have given evidence of the organized aspect of the pro-organic groups.


It's not imagination; it's glaringly true and staring you in the face. And no, the influence of mega corporations and foundations like the Gates Foundation cannot be off-set by several smaller companies. It can, however, be off-set by blowing the whistle and revealing to an increasingly educated and questioning public. And that is precisely what the "organized aspect" of pro-organics groups are doing.

Quote:
"Stanford researchers had touted their independence by stating they had not received outside financial support for their study, but [b]failed to delineate the close ties between their internal funding sources and industrialized agriculture and biotechnology interests."


Quote:
There are also close ties with other interests and industries, should those be a concern? Are any of them involved in the $25 billion dollar organics industry?


Absloutely, they should be a concern, especially considering the close ties Gates has with GMO's:

Quote:
British scientists at the John Innes Center recently won a $10 million grant from the Gates Foundation. Where’s the money going? Not surprisingly, as Gates owns over 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock, the organization is putting even more money into genetically modified cereal crops (corn, wheat and rice, to name a few).


http://naturalsociety.com/gates-foundat ... 10m-to-gm/

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/gates-foundat ... z26eX5EunH

"Not surprisingly, the study’s glaring errors, both in understanding the important and complex differences between organic and conventional foods and in the researchers’ flawed choice of research methods, prompted organic advocates to look closely at financial ties between Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, which supports the researchers, and the chemical and agribusiness industry."


The methods were the same as the other meta-studies and used nearly the same dataset even though their qualification criteria was one of the "flawed" choices presented. That is an example of creating a question where none really exists and it is very similar to what is seen in the debates over evolution and climate change by those who oppose the real science.

Flawed choices are just that. Interesting you should mention climate change. Guess who is on the side of Stanford's flawed research? Heartland Institute. (i'm sure you saw that too)

Quote:
"We tried to be really clear about when there was good evidence of a difference and good evidence of no difference, versus also being clear about when there was not good evidence of a difference," added Dr. Dena Bravata, senior researcher on the team.

This is disingenuous to say the least. They did not try hard enough. Maybe they were just sloppy?


Quote:
Or they are right. Given the quality of the evidence of their "flaws" I am beginning to believe they are more right and the critical bias is with those researcher trying to build up the organic brand.


No, they just took on a project that was beyond their scope and expertise.

Quote:
Quote:
"Many of the other nutrients Brandt analyzed and found to be greater in organics were also missing altogether from the new review, she noted. "The choices they made don't seem to make sense -- they seemed to include ones where the difference was smallest to begin with," said Brandt. "I'd like to know why they chose these and not others that were just as well-described in the same papers they included."


Quote:
"There was just no way that truly independent scientists with the expertise required to adequately answer such an important question would ignore the vast and growing body of scientific literature pointing to serious health risks from eating foods produced with synthetic chemicals," says Vallaeys.



Or maybe they just wanted to make sure the money keeps pouring in ....


Quote:
That can be said of both sides. Where did the funding originate for the studies showing support for organic products?


No it cannot be said for both sides. It can be said for one side only. Support from the $25 billion organics industry ..... drop in the bucket in comparison! And no such organic corporation exists, let alone is included as "friends" of Stanford. As usual, one need only follow the money ..... If you have found funding bias amongst the organic proponents, please do tell.

Quote:
"So 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."


Quote:
A six degrees of separation approach is just another version of the ad hominem fallacy.


Six degrees doesn't reflect "friendship". I doubt it's even one degree. The act of whistle-blowing cannot be construed as an ad hominem fallacy.

Quote:
Stanford University has deep ties to chemical agribusiness and agricultural biotechnology corporations. Agribusiness giant Cargill boasts it has a twenty-five year partnership with Stanford University, and faculty, including at the School of Medicine, have served on the Board of Directors of Monsanto while holding influential leadership positions at the university.


Stanford University is also the home of the Hoover Institution, a prominent ultraconservative, corporate-funded think tank that has attacked the credibility of organic farming and food production in the past.

George H. Poste, a member of Monsanto’s Board of Directors is listed on the biotechnology giant’s website as also being a Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution. The Cornucopia Institute monitors its activities, and those of other right-wing public affairs and lobby groups such as the Hudson Institute and the Heartland Institute,

Quote:
"When the Stanford researchers left out any mention of pesticide residue impacts on human health, well-documented in a number of respected peer-reviewed studies, it immediately raised a red flag that Stanford's analysis was likely designed to favor the agribusiness corporations in their desperate attempts to convince an increasingly educated and skeptical public that pesticides are safe," says Vallaeys.


Quote:
So this means organic produsts pose a health risk to humans that should be referenced in the studies because there is a detectable residue on a signficant percentage of the products? If not, that would appear to be a hypocritical and biased stance.


The much, much smaller residue found on a much, much smaller sample of organic produce is a result of chemical pesticides used in the vast majority of conventional farming and is a good argument for reduction. The pesticides are also found in our water, soil and air. In the case of organics, we have significant harm-reduction which is a very good reason to choose organics.

Quote:
As an example, the Stanford researchers omitted a 2010 study published in the journal Pediatrics by researchers at the University of Montreal and Harvard, which found that children with higher urinary levels of organophosphate metabolites, breakdown products of commonly used insecticides that are prohibited in organic agriculture, were more likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.


Quote:
Not really a surprise given the focus on the study was mainly nutritional, which seems to be lost in the attempt to smear it.


This was their fatal flaw. This is how they spun it.

Quote:
The Stanford study also omitted any acknowledgement of potential cancer risks from exposure to agricultural chemicals on conventional foods. This seems especially reprehensible to the scientists at Cornucopia in light of the 2009 President’s Cancer Panel report, which states: “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”


Quote:
"Journalists failed to do due diligence to check the credibility of the Stanford study, ..... Wanting to be ahead of the news curve, reporters rushed out their stories on this study, over a holiday weekend, without seeking the expert advice of scientists who have studied the harmful effects of chemicals used in conventional food products and the documented advantages of an organic diet."


Quote:
Additionally, the study did, in fact, concede a few positive attributes to organic foods, including the fact that organic produce has fewer pesticide residues; however, such facts were buried in the presentation of the research by the Stanford researchers and public relations staff and were not widely reported by major news sources.


Quote:
The Stanford study *overlapped* the research of Brandt's but was, in the end, inferior.


Quote:
Based on the criteria listed above, of course.


Yes, of course!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:26 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Wayne Stollings
As questions mounted over the past week, it seemed Stanford had also provided all the ingredients for a lot of noise: Supporters of the $25 billion-plus organics industry were ready and willing to start digging up dirt.[/i]


Why wouldn't they dig up dirt when there was evidently dirt to dig? This says nothing except the $25 billion organics industry has a bone to pick with big agri-business. Cargill alone is worth more than double than all the smaller organic enterprises are worth. So no. Both sides could not be equally influenced.


Quote:
Quote:
So, the perception of a smaller economic influence is "better"? That sounds very much like the statement about not trusting any limits on pesticide residue, but saying organic was safe because it had less. I beileve that is what is called a double standard.


Organics ARE safer. The accepted levels of pesticide use in conventional agriculture is causing health problems. Did you miss this?


If pesticides in conventional foods BELOW the accepted limits are causing health issues, the question is then what SHOULD the limits be and where is the data to support that claim. The only statements I have seen are the generalized "organics have less so they are better" claims with no supporting data.

Quote:
Quote:
As an example, the Stanford researchers omitted a 2010 study published in the journal Pediatrics by researchers at the University of Montreal and Harvard, which found that children with higher urinary levels of organophosphate metabolites, breakdown products of commonly used insecticides that are prohibited in organic agriculture, were more likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder


I know you didn't miss this:

"...the vast and growing body of scientific literature pointing to serious health risks from eating foods produced with synthetic chemicals,"


Yes, I did miss the specific listing of that growing body of literature. I also know of the serious heath risks associated with natural chamicals, some of which have been used in organic products.

Quote:
And there's no way you would have missed this either:

Quote:
2009 President’s Cancer Panel report, which states: “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”


The CONCENTRATION aspect is completely ignored in this. However, the lumping of agricultural and non-agricultural products really makes the statement unrelated to the discussion.

Quote:
So, yes, organics ARE safer exactly because they have significantly fewer pesticides. There is no double standard.


That does not make organic products SAFE for consumption, which would make it a double standard. It the allowed concentration criteria is wrong and there is no data to show the organic products concentraions are safe, there is clearly a double standard applired.

Quote:
And what do you mean by a "perception" of a smaller economic influence? It's not a mere "perception"; it is a reality. All the organic businesses are worth only 1/5 of what Cargill is worth ..... and Cargill is only ONE of the giants. Also Cargill is a supporter of Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute, where [b]some of the scientists who published this study are affiliates and fellows."


Just what I said, perception, which is different from reality. Cargill is a supplier of organic products so they are against their own business?

http://www.cargillfoods.com/ap/en/produ ... /index.jsp

Quote:
When entire news cycles are dominated by headlines built on a single university study, with editorials attempting to hammer in big-agri talking points, a lobbying effort is clearly afoot.


No, but that does make for a good conspiracy theory in any case.

Quote:
Quote:
The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) relies on support from its friends, as well as from national and international foundations and corporations, for the funding of the Institute's research, teaching and outreach activities. The Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). So who are these "friends," national and international foundations and corporations funding the research of FSI and its subsidiary, the Stanford Center for Health Policy?


Stanford's "friends" also include Bill and Melinda Gates. What are they worth and what are there ties to GMO's?


I am not trying to build a conspiracy theory out of speculation I am just pointing it out.

Quote:
Please point out where some kind of mythical Giant Organics Corporation is involved?


Not a corporation but an organized program. Such as is evidenced by the trade association with their very own lobby system.

http://www.ota.com/index.html

Quote:
All the organic enterprises combined are just a drop in the bucket compared to Cargill and Bill and Linda Gates.


And those are only anti-organic people? Other than Cargill selling its own organic prodcuts and Gates supporting GMOs which is not the same as opposing organic farming.

Quote:
Quote:
There is a lot of hypocrisy being exhibited in this case by the supporters of organic products.


I haven't seen it.


Then you are either being selective in your reading or are also participating in the hypocrisy.

Quote:
".... they had received large donations from conventional agriculture giant Cargill. When questioned by The Huffington Post, Stanford officials denied any such link. The research itself received no external funding, and the Cargill money went to a department not directly involved in the research, said Lisa Lapin, a Stanford spokesperson. At least some experts interviewed suggested that the industry money could still pose a subtle influence. And that pressure, or aura of accountability to a funding source, could then be easily hidden from the public.

Quote:
That is all you have though an imagination. The influence of on large company can be offset by the organized influence of several smaller companies and you have given evidence of the organized aspect of the pro-organic groups.


It's not imagination; it's glaringly true and staring you in the face. And no, the influence of mega corporations and foundations like the Gates Foundation cannot be off-set by several smaller companies. It can, however, be off-set by blowing the whistle and revealing to an increasingly educated and questioning public. And that is precisely what the "organized aspect" of pro-organics groups are doing.


First, there is no "glaring truth" is the ASSUMPTION of a connection between the internal funding and the Gates Foundation or any corporate entity. Second, touting that claim based on the assumption is clear evidence of the imaginary aspect.

Quote:
Quote:
"Stanford researchers had touted their independence by stating they had not received outside financial support for their study, but [b]failed to delineate the close ties between their internal funding sources and industrialized agriculture and biotechnology interests."


Quote:
There are also close ties with other interests and industries, should those be a concern? Are any of them involved in the $25 billion dollar organics industry?


Absloutely, they should be a concern, especially considering the close ties Gates has with GMO's:


So, the support of GMOs qutomatically means one is anti-organic? That is a logical fallacy called "false choice" that can go with the other fallacies upon which this position has been base.

Quote:
British scientists at the John Innes Center recently won a $10 million grant from the Gates Foundation. Where’s the money going? Not surprisingly, as Gates owns over 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock, the organization is putting even more money into genetically modified cereal crops (corn, wheat and rice, to name a few).

http://naturalsociety.com/gates-foundat ... 10m-to-gm/

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/gates-foundat ... z26eX5EunH


Yes, he realizes we cannot hope to feed the population with the current agricultural programs, including the lower production of organic processes.

Quote:
Quote:
"Not surprisingly, the study’s glaring errors, both in understanding the important and complex differences between organic and conventional foods and in the researchers’ flawed choice of research methods, prompted organic advocates to look closely at financial ties between Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, which supports the researchers, and the chemical and agribusiness industry."


The methods were the same as the other meta-studies and used nearly the same dataset even though their qualification criteria was one of the "flawed" choices presented. That is an example of creating a question where none really exists and it is very similar to what is seen in the debates over evolution and climate change by those who oppose the real science.


Quote:
Flawed choices are just that.


Let me expalin it simply. If the two studies use the same dataset, there can be no flawed chices surrounding the data used in only one. Either both use acceptable data, both us flawed data, or the claims surrounding the data quality are bogus attempts to discredit hoping the hypocrisy is not noticed. The neat part is that as many as two of these options can be true.


Quote:
Interesting you should mention climate change. Guess who is on the side of Stanford's flawed research? Heartland Institute. (i'm sure you saw that too)


That does not matter to me as it is the data that is important. If one opposes anything solely on the source that is a logical fallacy.

Quote:
"We tried to be really clear about when there was good evidence of a difference and good evidence of no difference, versus also being clear about when there was not good evidence of a difference," added Dr. Dena Bravata, senior researcher on the team.

This is disingenuous to say the least. They did not try hard enough. Maybe they were just sloppy?


Quote:
Or they are right. Given the quality of the evidence of their "flaws" I am beginning to believe they are more right and the critical bias is with those researcher trying to build up the organic brand.


Quote:
No, they just took on a project that was beyond their scope and expertise.


That does not appear to be supported by any factual evidence. It is supported by biased opinions, but that does not make it correct.

Quote:
Quote:
"Many of the other nutrients Brandt analyzed and found to be greater in organics were also missing altogether from the new review, she noted. "The choices they made don't seem to make sense -- they seemed to include ones where the difference was smallest to begin with," said Brandt. "I'd like to know why they chose these and not others that were just as well-described in the same papers they included."


Quote:
"There was just no way that truly independent scientists with the expertise required to adequately answer such an important question would ignore the vast and growing body of scientific literature pointing to serious health risks from eating foods produced with synthetic chemicals," says Vallaeys.



Or maybe they just wanted to make sure the money keeps pouring in ....


Quote:
Quote:
That can be said of both sides. Where did the funding originate for the studies showing support for organic products?


No it cannot be said for both sides. It can be said for one side only. Support from the $25 billion organics industry ..... drop in the bucket in comparison!


Prove it. Give us the data on where the funding goes. Also indicat how you can detrmine which side is which other than by blind assumption.

Quote:
And no such organic corporation exists, let alone is included as "friends" of Stanford.


Sure there is. Cargill is one. There are a lot in the industry and the trade groups and organizations can gather from many smaller sources to concentrate the resources. For example, where is the funding originating for the studies supportive of organic products?

Quote:
As usual, one need only follow the money ..... If you have found funding bias amongst the organic proponents, please do tell.


I have not found any funding links for any of the studies so far, but I am not making an assumption without any evidence as as you.

Quote:
Quote:
"So 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."


Quote:
A six degrees of separation approach is just another version of the ad hominem fallacy.


Six degrees doesn't reflect "friendship". I doubt it's even one degree. The act of whistle-blowing cannot be construed as an ad hominem fallacy.


What "whistle-blowing" is there in relation to the funding? If there is such a thing it would give figures of what was given and by whom. but that is not the case so far.

Quote:
Quote:
Stanford University has deep ties to chemical agribusiness and agricultural biotechnology corporations. Agribusiness giant Cargill boasts it has a twenty-five year partnership with Stanford University, and faculty, including at the School of Medicine, have served on the Board of Directors of Monsanto while holding influential leadership positions at the university.


Stanford University is also the home of the Hoover Institution, a prominent ultraconservative, corporate-funded think tank that has attacked the credibility of organic farming and food production in the past.


And? Everyone who ever went to Stanford is tainted in some fashion? What?

Quote:
George H. Poste, a member of Monsanto’s Board of Directors is listed on the biotechnology giant’s website as also being a Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution. The Cornucopia Institute monitors its activities, and those of other right-wing public affairs and lobby groups such as the Hudson Institute and the Heartland Institute,


And?

Quote:
Quote:
"When the Stanford researchers left out any mention of pesticide residue impacts on human health, well-documented in a number of respected peer-reviewed studies, it immediately raised a red flag that Stanford's analysis was likely designed to favor the agribusiness corporations in their desperate attempts to convince an increasingly educated and skeptical public that pesticides are safe," says Vallaeys.


Quote:
So this means organic produsts pose a health risk to humans that should be referenced in the studies because there is a detectable residue on a signficant percentage of the products? If not, that would appear to be a hypocritical and biased stance.


The much, much smaller residue found on a much, much smaller sample of organic produce is a result of chemical pesticides used in the vast majority of conventional farming and is a good argument for reduction. The pesticides are also found in our water, soil and air. In the case of organics, we have significant harm-reduction which is a very good reason to choose organics.


Well, the pesticide residue has no impact on the NUTRITIONAL aspect, which was the focus of the paper. If the concentration is an issue, you have to give us data to support why the lower residue has a significant impact. If the organic level is acceptable we have to see some data as the WHY that level is acceptable and above it is not. The cost to benefit ratio can have a diminishing return after a certain point. The levels are not that significant when you really look at it. With conventional food there is a 67% chance of getting product with no residue and a 95% chance with organic products. There is a 100% chance of spending more money for the organic product. If the reduction has no real benefit, the impact on the budget is then important.

Quote:
Quote:
As an example, the Stanford researchers omitted a 2010 study published in the journal Pediatrics by researchers at the University of Montreal and Harvard, which found that children with higher urinary levels of organophosphate metabolites, breakdown products of commonly used insecticides that are prohibited in organic agriculture, were more likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.


Quote:
Not really a surprise given the focus on the study was mainly nutritional, which seems to be lost in the attempt to smear it.


This was their fatal flaw. This is how they spun it.


It is NOT a flaw. It was NOT an aspect of the study. The study focused on NUTRITIONAL VALUES, which is not related to that study findings.

Quote:
Quote:
The Stanford study also omitted any acknowledgement of potential cancer risks from exposure to agricultural chemicals on conventional foods. This seems especially reprehensible to the scientists at Cornucopia in light of the 2009 President’s Cancer Panel report, which states: “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”


Quote:
"Journalists failed to do due diligence to check the credibility of the Stanford study, ..... Wanting to be ahead of the news curve, reporters rushed out their stories on this study, over a holiday weekend, without seeking the expert advice of scientists who have studied the harmful effects of chemicals used in conventional food products and the documented advantages of an organic diet."


Quote:
Additionally, the study did, in fact, concede a few positive attributes to organic foods, including the fact that organic produce has fewer pesticide residues; however, such facts were buried in the presentation of the research by the Stanford researchers and public relations staff and were not widely reported by major news sources.


Quote:
The Stanford study *overlapped* the research of Brandt's but was, in the end, inferior.


Quote:
Based on the criteria listed above, of course.


Quote:
Yes, of course!


I am confused as to what you are trying to say as you seem to be unable to keep the quotes in any reasonable order and have dropped several out which changed the meanings. It appears to be an intentional attempt ot misrepresent the quotes, but that would be dishonest and the supporters of organic products would never stoop to that ... or would they?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:54 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
2009 President’s Cancer Panel report, which states: “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. [b]Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”



I wanted to point out that ALL of the approved organic pesticides, which contain chemicals, are also registered by the U.S. EPA for use. I suppose that means this makes them a problem?

http://web.pppmb.cals.cornell.edu/resou ... ethrum.php

http://web.pppmb.cals.cornell.edu/resou ... tenone.php

Also an interesting take on the organic v non-organic pesticides in an NPR story:


http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/06 ... n-oxymoron

It may seem counterintuitive, but foods that are grown to organic standards can contain commercially manufactured pesticides.

A U.S. Department of Agriculture survey of produce that found nearly 20 percent of organic lettuce tested positive for pesticide residues piqued our interest. Lots of the lettuce contained quite a bit of spinosad, a pesticide marketed by Dow Chemical under the brand name Entrust.

So we called Jeff Gillman, a professor of nursery management at the University of Minnesota, who has written about organic practices for lay readers. Right off the bat he told us:

"When people are buying organic food, they often make the incorrect assumption that there are no pesticides. It's true that organic production often uses fewer dangerous chemicals, but certain pesticides are allowed."

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:08 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1352
Wayne says:
I
Quote:
am confused as to what you are trying to say as you seem to be unable to keep the quotes in any reasonable order and have dropped several out which changed the meanings.


I have dropped very few paragraphs .... That is not much different than info I have given which was not acknowledged or responded to. No, you're not confused. And you are certainly not confused about what I am saying. The quotes are kept in a fairly reasonable order which you can make sense of. Of course you can.

Quote:
It appears to be an intentional attempt ot misrepresent the quotes, but that would be dishonest and the supporters of organic products would never stoop to that ... or would they?
.

If I have ommitted some, you can always remit them, as I have done on several occassions. If I can manage, so can you. If you really think there are points that need to be heard, you will reiterate them. Is this not so? Or do you have some rule-bound conditioning which prevents you? Let it rip Wayne! Go for it!

I have no need to misrepresent your quotes .... intentionally or otherwise.

And, for one so sensitive to "ad-hominem" attacks, ....... why would you suggest that one would misinterpret or obliterate yours just because they (me) have a different take based on their support of organics?

You said: "supporters of organic products would never stoop to that ... or would they?"

WHO are the people that support organics and would all such people stoop?

If you will insist on such standards, you must also keep them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:42 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1352
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
2009 President’s Cancer Panel report, which states: “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. [b]Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”



I wanted to point out that ALL of the approved organic pesticides, which contain chemicals, are also registered by the U.S. EPA for use. I suppose that means this makes them a problem?

Quote:
It makes them a lesser problem. Again, harm-reduction.



http://web.pppmb.cals.cornell.edu/resou ... ethrum.php

http://web.pppmb.cals.cornell.edu/resou ... tenone.php

Also an interesting take on the organic v non-organic pesticides in an NPR story:


http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/06 ... n-oxymoron

It may seem counterintuitive, but foods that are grown to organic standards can contain commercially manufactured pesticides.

We already knew that.


A U.S. Department of Agriculture survey of produce that found nearly 20 percent of organic lettuce tested positive for pesticide residues piqued our interest. Lots of the lettuce contained quite a bit of spinosad, a pesticide marketed by Dow Chemical under the brand name Entrust.

Yup.

So we called Jeff Gillman, a professor of nursery management at the University of Minnesota, who has written about organic practices for lay readers. Right off the bat he told us:

"When people are buying organic food, they often make the incorrect assumption that there are no pesticides. It's true that organic production often uses fewer dangerous chemicals, but certain pesticides are allowed."


Yup. We got that. Because we are increasingly educated, which is why we continue to buy organic ...

"It's true that organic production often uses fewer dangerous chemicals, but certain pesticides are allowed".

We got it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group