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.jspQuote:
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.htmlQuote:
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 ... z26eX5EunHYes, 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?