EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:08 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 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:25 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1335
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
The criticism is levelled at the statistical technique used by Olkin to try to debunk the effects of smoking on heart disease. As for the Satnford study on organics ......


No, the references to the request for a grant from the tobacco group and the quotes listed are not doing anything except trying to paint the study with a very broad brush in order to try to taint it.

Quote:
"The basic statistical indicators used by the Stanford team to compare the nutritional quality and safety of organic versus conventional food consistently understate the magnitude of the differences reported in high-quality, contemporary peer-reviewed studies. In the case of pesticides and antibiotics, the indicator used—the percent of samples of organic food with a trait minus the percent of conventional samples affected—is not a valid indicator of human health risk."

http://organicfarms.wsu.edu/blog/devil-in-the-details/


Nutrition is the determination of health risk in what definition?

nutrition,
n the process of assimilation and use of essential food elements from the diet (e.g., carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, mineral elements).


Quote:
And ....

A team of plant and food scientists carried out a sophisticated meta-analysis of the “organic-versus-conventional food” nutrient-content literature. The team was led by Kirsten Brandt, a scientist at the Human Nutrition Research Center, Newcastle University in the United Kingdom. Their analysis was published in Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences in 2011, under the title, “Agroecosystem Management and Nutritional Quality of Plant Foods: The Case of Organic Fruits and Vegetables” (Vol. 30: 177–197).

The Stanford paper cites this analysis but does not mention its findings, remark on the study’s scope and sophisticated methodology, nor acknowledge the major differences in the conclusions reached.


Many published papers do not reference findings of other studies even if they are used as a reference.


What? The Stanford paper does cite Brandt's analysis but fails to mention it's findings.[/quote]

As I said, that is not uncommon, especially if the findings are not relevant to the current paper.

"Many published papers do not reference findings of other studies even if they are used as a reference."[/quote]

Right. Apparantly there was quite a lot of info not relevent to the study. Oh well, it certainly sold some newspapers!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:35 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20538
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
The criticism is levelled at the statistical technique used by Olkin to try to debunk the effects of smoking on heart disease. As for the Satnford study on organics ......


No, the references to the request for a grant from the tobacco group and the quotes listed are not doing anything except trying to paint the study with a very broad brush in order to try to taint it.

Quote:
"The basic statistical indicators used by the Stanford team to compare the nutritional quality and safety of organic versus conventional food consistently understate the magnitude of the differences reported in high-quality, contemporary peer-reviewed studies. In the case of pesticides and antibiotics, the indicator used—the percent of samples of organic food with a trait minus the percent of conventional samples affected—is not a valid indicator of human health risk."

http://organicfarms.wsu.edu/blog/devil-in-the-details/


Nutrition is the determination of health risk in what definition?

nutrition,
n the process of assimilation and use of essential food elements from the diet (e.g., carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, mineral elements).


Quote:
And ....

A team of plant and food scientists carried out a sophisticated meta-analysis of the “organic-versus-conventional food” nutrient-content literature. The team was led by Kirsten Brandt, a scientist at the Human Nutrition Research Center, Newcastle University in the United Kingdom. Their analysis was published in Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences in 2011, under the title, “Agroecosystem Management and Nutritional Quality of Plant Foods: The Case of Organic Fruits and Vegetables” (Vol. 30: 177–197).

The Stanford paper cites this analysis but does not mention its findings, remark on the study’s scope and sophisticated methodology, nor acknowledge the major differences in the conclusions reached.


Many published papers do not reference findings of other studies even if they are used as a reference.


What? The Stanford paper does cite Brandt's analysis but fails to mention it's findings.


animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
As I said, that is not uncommon, especially if the findings are not relevant to the current paper.

"Many published papers do not reference findings of other studies even if they are used as a reference."


Right. Apparantly there was quite a lot of info not relevent to the study. Oh well, it certainly sold some newspapers!


I was not aware of the first paper selling many newspapers. I would not imagine that would be the case given the number of assumptions used to create a model result rather than an actual clinical study to have accurate data.

_________________
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: Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:44 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20538
Location: Southeastern US
According to the one study if one eats organic foods they possibly could live as much as three week longer over their lifespan .... or not, depending on how accurate the assumptions relating to the undelying mechanism, the relationship between that mechanism and organic food, and the model accuracy relate to reality. 8-[ :shock: :-k #-o

_________________
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: Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:38 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1335
Wayne Stollings wrote:
According to the one study if one eats organic foods they possibly could live as much as three week longer over their lifespan .... or not, depending on how accurate the assumptions relating to the undelying mechanism, the relationship between that mechanism and organic food, and the model accuracy relate to reality. 8-[ :shock: :-k #-o



A little something from the National Cancer Institute ..... and one of the reasons Franceis Moore Lappe found the Stanford study "recklessly irresponsible"!

For example, a study from the AHS reported in 2009 that people who use the weed killer imazethapyr have increased risks of bladder cancer and colon cancer. Imazethapyr is in a class of chemicals known as aromatic amines. It was first used in the United States in 1989, and, since then, has been one of the most commonly used herbicides for killing weeds in soybean, dry bean, alfalfa, and other crop fields.

Studies in mice and rats led the EPA to classify imazethapyr as unlikely to be a human carcinogen. But, in the AHS, people with the highest cumulative lifetime exposure had more than twice the risk (137 percent increase in risk) of developing bladder cancer compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical. Similarly, the risk of colon cancer (mostly tumors in the proximal colon, where food enters during digestion) was nearly twice as high as normal (78 percent increased risk) among farmers who had the highest level of exposure compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical.

In addition, a condition called monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), which commonly precedes multiple myeloma, was found in blood samples of men in the AHS at twice the rate it was found in blood samples of men in Minnesota who were not part of the AHS cohort. This increased risk of MGUS was observed among men who used the chlorinated insecticide dieldrin, the fumigant mixture carbon-tetrachloride/carbon disulfide, the fungicide chlorothalonil, and possibly other pesticides. Now, a larger study within the AHS is looking more closely at the risk of MGUS with use of specific pesticides.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:18 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20538
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
According to the one study if one eats organic foods they possibly could live as much as three week longer over their lifespan .... or not, depending on how accurate the assumptions relating to the undelying mechanism, the relationship between that mechanism and organic food, and the model accuracy relate to reality. 8-[ :shock: :-k #-o



A little something from the National Cancer Institute ..... and one of the reasons Franceis Moore Lappe found the Stanford study "recklessly irresponsible"!

For example, a study from the AHS reported in 2009 that people who use the weed killer imazethapyr have increased risks of bladder cancer and colon cancer. Imazethapyr is in a class of chemicals known as aromatic amines. It was first used in the United States in 1989, and, since then, has been one of the most commonly used herbicides for killing weeds in soybean, dry bean, alfalfa, and other crop fields.

Studies in mice and rats led the EPA to classify imazethapyr as unlikely to be a human carcinogen. But, in the AHS, people with the highest cumulative lifetime exposure had more than twice the risk (137 percent increase in risk) of developing bladder cancer compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical. Similarly, the risk of colon cancer (mostly tumors in the proximal colon, where food enters during digestion) was nearly twice as high as normal (78 percent increased risk) among farmers who had the highest level of exposure compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical.



So how many of the consumers of non-organic food use a weed killer as part of their diet? I cannot see how that could be excluded from a study on the differences between consumption of organic and non-organic foods.

Quote:
In addition, a condition called monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), which commonly precedes multiple myeloma, was found in blood samples of men in the AHS at twice the rate it was found in blood samples of men in Minnesota who were not part of the AHS cohort. This increased risk of MGUS was observed among men who used the chlorinated insecticide dieldrin, the fumigant mixture carbon-tetrachloride/carbon disulfide, the fungicide chlorothalonil, and possibly other pesticides. Now, a larger study within the AHS is looking more closely at the risk of MGUS with use of specific pesticides.


Wow, if one were to travel back in time one might find some connection to non-organic food and dieldrin, but that pesticide has not been used in the US for over 25 years. I cannot fathom why such an important aspect was ignored by the "misleading" study.

Given this information, I wonder why Franceis Moore Lappe found the Stanford study "recklessly irresponsible"? :-k #-o :-

_________________
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: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:09 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1335
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
According to the one study if one eats organic foods they possibly could live as much as three week longer over their lifespan .... or not, depending on how accurate the assumptions relating to the undelying mechanism, the relationship between that mechanism and organic food, and the model accuracy relate to reality. 8-[ :shock: :-k #-o



A little something from the National Cancer Institute ..... and one of the reasons Franceis Moore Lappe found the Stanford study "recklessly irresponsible"!

For example, a study from the AHS reported in 2009 that people who use the weed killer imazethapyr have increased risks of bladder cancer and colon cancer. Imazethapyr is in a class of chemicals known as aromatic amines. It was first used in the United States in 1989, and, since then, has been one of the most commonly used herbicides for killing weeds in soybean, dry bean, alfalfa, and other crop fields.

Studies in mice and rats led the EPA to classify imazethapyr as unlikely to be a human carcinogen. But, in the AHS, people with the highest cumulative lifetime exposure had more than twice the risk (137 percent increase in risk) of developing bladder cancer compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical. Similarly, the risk of colon cancer (mostly tumors in the proximal colon, where food enters during digestion) was nearly twice as high as normal (78 percent increased risk) among farmers who had the highest level of exposure compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical.



So how many of the consumers of non-organic food use a weed killer as part of their diet? I cannot see how that could be excluded from a study on the differences between consumption of organic and non-organic foods.

Quote:
In addition, a condition called monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), which commonly precedes multiple myeloma, was found in blood samples of men in the AHS at twice the rate it was found in blood samples of men in Minnesota who were not part of the AHS cohort. This increased risk of MGUS was observed among men who used the chlorinated insecticide dieldrin, the fumigant mixture carbon-tetrachloride/carbon disulfide, the fungicide chlorothalonil, and possibly other pesticides. Now, a larger study within the AHS is looking more closely at the risk of MGUS with use of specific pesticides.


Wow, if one were to travel back in time one might find some connection to non-organic food and dieldrin, but that pesticide has not been used in the US for over 25 years. I cannot fathom why such an important aspect was ignored by the "misleading" study.

Given this information, I wonder why Franceis Moore Lappe found the Stanford study "recklessly irresponsible"? :-k #-o :-



You are hilarious Wayne. Clutiching at straws ......


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:52 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20538
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
According to the one study if one eats organic foods they possibly could live as much as three week longer over their lifespan .... or not, depending on how accurate the assumptions relating to the undelying mechanism, the relationship between that mechanism and organic food, and the model accuracy relate to reality. 8-[ :shock: :-k #-o



A little something from the National Cancer Institute ..... and one of the reasons Franceis Moore Lappe found the Stanford study "recklessly irresponsible"!

For example, a study from the AHS reported in 2009 that people who use the weed killer imazethapyr have increased risks of bladder cancer and colon cancer. Imazethapyr is in a class of chemicals known as aromatic amines. It was first used in the United States in 1989, and, since then, has been one of the most commonly used herbicides for killing weeds in soybean, dry bean, alfalfa, and other crop fields.

Studies in mice and rats led the EPA to classify imazethapyr as unlikely to be a human carcinogen. But, in the AHS, people with the highest cumulative lifetime exposure had more than twice the risk (137 percent increase in risk) of developing bladder cancer compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical. Similarly, the risk of colon cancer (mostly tumors in the proximal colon, where food enters during digestion) was nearly twice as high as normal (78 percent increased risk) among farmers who had the highest level of exposure compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical.



So how many of the consumers of non-organic food use a weed killer as part of their diet? I cannot see how that could be excluded from a study on the differences between consumption of organic and non-organic foods.

Quote:
In addition, a condition called monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), which commonly precedes multiple myeloma, was found in blood samples of men in the AHS at twice the rate it was found in blood samples of men in Minnesota who were not part of the AHS cohort. This increased risk of MGUS was observed among men who used the chlorinated insecticide dieldrin, the fumigant mixture carbon-tetrachloride/carbon disulfide, the fungicide chlorothalonil, and possibly other pesticides. Now, a larger study within the AHS is looking more closely at the risk of MGUS with use of specific pesticides.


Wow, if one were to travel back in time one might find some connection to non-organic food and dieldrin, but that pesticide has not been used in the US for over 25 years. I cannot fathom why such an important aspect was ignored by the "misleading" study.

Given this information, I wonder why Franceis Moore Lappe found the Stanford study "recklessly irresponsible"? :-k #-o :-



animal-friendly wrote:
You are hilarious Wayne. Clutiching at straws ......



You mean like your example of a "problem" with non-organic food the "flawed study" did not recognize because it has not been used since the mid-1980s? Or the problem with a herbicide that was also not recognized because those who consume the food do not apply herbicides and the problem is only related to the application? No, the straws are firmly grasped by your position and they are not very large straws either.

_________________
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: Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:01 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1335
A little something from the National Cancer Institute ..... and one of the reasons Franceis Moore Lappe found the Stanford study "recklessly irresponsible"!

For example, a study from the AHS reported in 2009 that people who use the weed killer imazethapyr have increased risks of bladder cancer and colon cancer. Imazethapyr is in a class of chemicals known as aromatic amines. It was first used in the United States in 1989, and, since then, has been one of the most commonly used herbicides for killing weeds in soybean, dry bean, alfalfa, and other crop fields.

Studies in mice and rats led the EPA to classify imazethapyr as unlikely to be a human carcinogen. But, in the AHS, people with the highest cumulative lifetime exposure had more than twice the risk (137 percent increase in risk) of developing bladder cancer compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical. Similarly, the risk of colon cancer (mostly tumors in the proximal colon, where food enters during digestion) was nearly twice as high as normal (78 percent increased risk) among farmers who had the highest level of exposure compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical. [/quote]


So how many of the consumers of non-organic food use a weed killer as part of their diet? I cannot see how that could be excluded from a study on the differences between consumption of organic and non-organic foods.

Quote:
In addition, a condition called monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), which commonly precedes multiple myeloma, was found in blood samples of men in the AHS at twice the rate it was found in blood samples of men in Minnesota who were not part of the AHS cohort. This increased risk of MGUS was observed among men who used the chlorinated insecticide dieldrin, the fumigant mixture carbon-tetrachloride/carbon disulfide, the fungicide chlorothalonil, and possibly other pesticides. Now, a larger study within the AHS is looking more closely at the risk of MGUS with use of specific pesticides.


Wow, if one were to travel back in time one might find some connection to non-organic food and dieldrin, but that pesticide has not been used in the US for over 25 years. I cannot fathom why such an important aspect was ignored by the "misleading" study.

Given this information, I wonder why Franceis Moore Lappe found the Stanford study "recklessly irresponsible"? :-k #-o :-[/quote]


animal-friendly wrote:
You are hilarious Wayne. Clutiching at straws ......



You mean like your example of a "problem" with non-organic food the "flawed study" did not recognize because it has not been used since the mid-1980s? Or the problem with a herbicide that was also not recognized because those who consume the food do not apply herbicides and the problem is only related to the application? No, the straws are firmly grasped by your position and they are not very large straws either.[/quote]

Wayne, the writing is on the wall ...... the Stanford team *spun* the headlines .... Why? I don't yet know for sure, but they are up to no good and I have a very, very strong suspicion that it has something to do with their funders! Remarkably irresponsible! Why did Frances Moore Lappe find the Stanford study recklessly irresponsible?

It was a Strawman to begin with!

Quote:
I read the summary of the Stanford study, which the BBC didn’t even bother to link to online, always a bad sign. Call me cynical but at no time have I ever thought organic food contained more vitamins or nutrients. Why would it? The suggestion is a straw man that lazy news outlets are happy to beat into the ground with a special science hoe.



http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2012/09/ ... nic-study/

Consumers can markedly reduce their intake of pesticide residues and their exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria by choosing organic produce and meat, according to researchers at Stanford University who reviewed a massive body of scientific studies on the much-debated issue.

Quote:
“The study confirms the message that EWG ... have been sending for years, that consumers who eat organic fruits and vegetables can significantly reduce pesticide concentrations in their bodies,” Sonya Lunder, senior analyst at Environmental Working Group, said. .... the risks of dietary exposures to synthetic pesticides, especially organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides, are greatest during pregnancy and childhood, when the brain and nervous system are most vulnerable. These are two groups that should really avoid eating foods with high levels of pesticide residues.”


Quote:
Based on its review of the available research, the Stanford team also concluded that conventionally raised meat harbors more antibiotic resistant bacteria. It found that consumers of non-organic chicken or pork are 33 percent more likely to ingest three or more strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria than those who eat organic meat.


Quote:
“What jumped out at us in this study is that conventionally-raised meat treated heavily with antibiotics is much more likely to carry drug-resistant bacteria than meat produced on organic farms,” said EWG Senior Analyst Kari Hamerschlag, who focuses on organic and conventional agriculture. “Antibiotics, which are banned in organic production, promote the development of resistant super-bugs that are a serious risk to human health.”


Quote:
EWG noted that the Stanford study also did not directly address the important environmental and public health benefits that result from reduced pesticide and antibiotic use. Synthetic pesticides can kill insect pollinators, harm wildlife and farmworkers, and often end up in the air and water. Tests conducted in 2011 by the US Geological Survey found that glyphosate (commonly sold as Roundup), one of the most widely used herbicides, was a ubiquitous contaminant in air, water and rainfall in two Midwest states.


Quote:
“Organic produce and meat products live up to their promise,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “Consumers selecting organic produce ingest fewer pesticides. They also eat meats that harbor fewer deadly bacteria. You can rest assured that organic food provides a healthier choice for people and the planet.”


Quote:
While the Stanford study briefly mentioned previous research on the effects of organic foods on children’s health, it did not focus on the growing body of studies published in the last decade that have demonstrated children’s higher sensitivity to the effects of neurotoxic pesticides.


Quote:
“Studies that have come out in the last two years have linked exposures to organophosphate pesticides with increased risks of ADHD and lower IQ in children, and to low birth weight and early gestation among newborns,” said Cook. “The authors of this study, for whatever reason, decided not to focus on this new and troubling research showing that a diet of food high in certain pesticides could pose such serious and lasting health impacts in children. That’s a glaring omission, in my opinion.”


And from Heather Malick in the Toronto Star – “Organic food hits the spot”

Quote:
I do assume, however, that organic food contains fewer pesticides, which is why it’s called “organic.” Since it’s a harder slog growing fruits and vegetables hand-swept for pests with baby hairbrushes than dosed with things like Bacillus subtilis, boscalid, pyraclostrobin, pyrimethanil and trifloxystrobin, I’m willing to pay more. I’m not impressed when non-organic food is lauded at “within acceptable contaminant levels.” Who decides those levels? Are they science-based or simply industry-friendly?


http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... er-for-you

You see, the meta-analytic study, which studied other brief and often unreliable studies (17 on humans, 223 on food) found two studies showing “significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children eating organic food,” and 30 per cent less pesticide contamination over-all. Most media ignored this, .....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:45 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
AF, what part of "not clinically meaningful" do you fail to understand?

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:04 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1335
Fosgate wrote:
AF, what part of "not clinically meaningful" do you fail to understand?


Geez Fos. You've gotta be able to do beter than that!

http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/ ... ional-food

The report’s stated purpose was to “comprehensively synthesize the published literature on the health, nutritional, and safety characteristics of organic and conventional foods.” So Remapping Debate thought it would be useful to speak to one of the study’s authors to understand any limitations on how the scientists met that stated task.

While the study looked for evidence of direct impacts on the consumers of organic and non-organic food, it didn’t appear to consider the environmental impact of non-organic farming. How might the pervasive use of agrochemicals that remain in soil and might leech into groundwater affect human health? What about the health and safety impacts of pesticides on farm workers?

Smith-Spangler was quick to admit the study did not address these questions.

Asked about the risks of non-organic farms serving as laboratories for the breeding of more — and more dangerous — antibiotic-resistant bacteria .....

Smith-Spangler said that this issue, too, was beyond the scope of the study.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:35 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20538
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne, the writing is on the wall ...... the Stanford team *spun* the headlines .... Why? I don't yet know for sure, but they are up to no good and I have a very, very strong suspicion that it has something to do with their funders! Remarkably irresponsible!


First, the Stanford team cannot "spin" the headlines. The reporters and editors decide on that aspect of news reporting. Second, your assumptions concerning funding are without any factual support, and to lable them irresponsible based on your conspiracy theory assumptions is beyond ludicrous
.

Quote:
Why did Frances Moore Lappe find the Stanford study recklessly irresponsible?

It was a Strawman to begin with!


Yes, the claim was a strawman to begin with so why repeat it?

Quote:
I read the summary of the Stanford study, which the BBC didn’t even bother to link to online, always a bad sign. Call me cynical but at no time have I ever thought organic food contained more vitamins or nutrients. Why would it? The suggestion is a straw man that lazy news outlets are happy to beat into the ground with a special science hoe.


Odd that one of the questions posed to the Mayo Clinic concerning organic foods often enough to be included in the title is regarding the nutritional value.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255

If there is no problem with conceding there is no difference in nutritional value then why is there a reason to claim a problem with the study? A strawman?


Quote:
http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/more-on-the-stanford-organic-study/

Consumers can markedly reduce their intake of pesticide residues and their exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria by choosing organic produce and meat, according to researchers at Stanford University who reviewed a massive body of scientific studies on the much-debated issue.

Quote:
“The study confirms the message that EWG ... have been sending for years, that consumers who eat organic fruits and vegetables can significantly reduce pesticide concentrations in their bodies,” Sonya Lunder, senior analyst at Environmental Working Group, said. .... the risks of dietary exposures to synthetic pesticides, especially organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides, are greatest during pregnancy and childhood, when the brain and nervous system are most vulnerable. These are two groups that should really avoid eating foods with high levels of pesticide residues.”


I did not see references to the exposure to pesticides being significantly reduced by organic foods in the study references, but this does not sound as if the study was "recklessly irresponsible" to me.

Quote:
Quote:
Based on its review of the available research, the Stanford team also concluded that conventionally raised meat harbors more antibiotic resistant bacteria. It found that consumers of non-organic chicken or pork are 33 percent more likely to ingest three or more strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria than those who eat organic meat.


Quote:
“What jumped out at us in this study is that conventionally-raised meat treated heavily with antibiotics is much more likely to carry drug-resistant bacteria than meat produced on organic farms,” said EWG Senior Analyst Kari Hamerschlag, who focuses on organic and conventional agriculture. “Antibiotics, which are banned in organic production, promote the development of resistant super-bugs that are a serious risk to human health.”


Quote:
EWG noted that the Stanford study also did not directly address the important environmental and public health benefits that result from reduced pesticide and antibiotic use. Synthetic pesticides can kill insect pollinators, harm wildlife and farmworkers, and often end up in the air and water. Tests conducted in 2011 by the US Geological Survey found that glyphosate (commonly sold as Roundup), one of the most widely used herbicides, was a ubiquitous contaminant in air, water and rainfall in two Midwest states.


This still does not sound as if the study was "recklessly irresponsible" to me.

Quote:
Quote:
“Organic produce and meat products live up to their promise,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “Consumers selecting organic produce ingest fewer pesticides. They also eat meats that harbor fewer deadly bacteria. You can rest assured that organic food provides a healthier choice for people and the planet.”


Quote:
While the Stanford study briefly mentioned previous research on the effects of organic foods on children’s health, it did not focus on the growing body of studies published in the last decade that have demonstrated children’s higher sensitivity to the effects of neurotoxic pesticides.


Quote:
“Studies that have come out in the last two years have linked exposures to organophosphate pesticides with increased risks of ADHD and lower IQ in children, and to low birth weight and early gestation among newborns,” said Cook. “The authors of this study, for whatever reason, decided not to focus on this new and troubling research showing that a diet of food high in certain pesticides could pose such serious and lasting health impacts in children. That’s a glaring omission, in my opinion.”


A disagreement with the "focus" on the study and the opinion of a biased source really makes your case ... NOT. What is a "high" in certain pesticides exactly?

Quote:
And from Heather Malick in the Toronto Star – “Organic food hits the spot”

Quote:
I do assume, however, that organic food contains fewer pesticides, which is why it’s called “organic.” Since it’s a harder slog growing fruits and vegetables hand-swept for pests with baby hairbrushes than dosed with things like Bacillus subtilis, boscalid, pyraclostrobin, pyrimethanil and trifloxystrobin, I’m willing to pay more. I’m not impressed when non-organic food is lauded at “within acceptable contaminant levels.” Who decides those levels? Are they science-based or simply industry-friendly?


Can you say hypocrisy? If one assumes organic has fewer pesticides but not pesticide free and then claims to not be impressed with a determination of an "acceptable limit" why is the lower exposure now acceptable?

Quote:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1253469--mallick-organic-food-is-better-tasting-and-better-for-you

You see, the meta-analytic study, which studied other brief and often unreliable studies (17 on humans, 223 on food) found two studies showing “significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children eating organic food,” and 30 per cent less pesticide contamination over-all. Most media ignored this, .....


So how are the two studies from the "brief and often unreliable studies" reliable? Because they results are in line with a predetermined belief? How is the media's approach the problem with the study being reported?

_________________
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: Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:42 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
animal-friendly wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
AF, what part of "not clinically meaningful" do you fail to understand?


Geez Fos. You've gotta be able to do beter than that!


You're right. I should leave it to you to perpetually ask questions.

Quote:
http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/stanford-researcher-readily-acknowledges-limitations-study-organic-versus-conventional-food

The report’s stated purpose was to “comprehensively synthesize the published literature on the health, nutritional, and safety characteristics of organic and conventional foods.” So Remapping Debate thought it would be useful to speak to one of the study’s authors to understand any limitations on how the scientists met that stated task.


Trying reading the study. The scope is just that. Conclusions are applicable within it.

Quote:
While the study looked for evidence of direct impacts on the consumers of organic and non-organic food, it didn’t appear to consider the environmental impact of non-organic farming. How might the pervasive use of agrochemicals that remain in soil and might leech into groundwater affect human health? What about the health and safety impacts of pesticides on farm workers?


Ooooookay. What of them? Presenting answers as opposed to questions might enhance your credibility. In my field, it's the difference between those who succeed and those who never make a move because they don't have all the answers up front.

Quote:
Smith-Spangler was quick to admit the study did not address these questions.


I wouldn't expect it to. But then, reading comprehension helps, as would being proficient in the sciences.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:46 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20538
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
AF, what part of "not clinically meaningful" do you fail to understand?


Geez Fos. You've gotta be able to do beter than that!

http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/ ... ional-food

The report’s stated purpose was to “comprehensively synthesize the published literature on the health, nutritional, and safety characteristics of organic and conventional foods.” So Remapping Debate thought it would be useful to speak to one of the study’s authors to understand any limitations on how the scientists met that stated task.

While the study looked for evidence of direct impacts on the consumers of organic and non-organic food, it didn’t appear to consider the environmental impact of non-organic farming. How might the pervasive use of agrochemicals that remain in soil and might leech into groundwater affect human health? What about the health and safety impacts of pesticides on farm workers?

Smith-Spangler was quick to admit the study did not address these questions.

Asked about the risks of non-organic farms serving as laboratories for the breeding of more — and more dangerous — antibiotic-resistant bacteria .....

Smith-Spangler said that this issue, too, was beyond the scope of the study.


Maybe they should have studied the potential crop harvest for organic and conventional crops to determine how many people would not be able to eat to mitigate these potential impacts? How does that make the study flawed or "recklessly irresponsible"?

_________________
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: Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:23 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Maybe they should have studied the potential crop harvest for organic and conventional crops to determine how many people would not be able to eat to mitigate these potential impacts? How does that make the study flawed or "recklessly irresponsible"?


Facts are a funny thing, are they not? It would behoove AF to learn what to do with them. Questions are fine so long as they aren't confounded with conclusions.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Organic huh?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:10 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1335
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Maybe they should have studied the potential crop harvest for organic and conventional crops to determine how many people would not be able to eat to mitigate these potential impacts? How does that make the study flawed or "recklessly irresponsible"?


Facts are a funny thing, are they not? It would behoove AF to learn what to do with them. Questions are fine so long as they aren't confounded with conclusions.


It would behoove you, Fos, to ask more.


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 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group