• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Organic food is not healthier study shows

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
NikolaeVarius said:
So lets say that there is 1 milliliter of pesticide on every piece of fruit that is ingested. There is most likely MUCH MUCH MUCH less than that.

8 ounces of pesticide is 237 or so milliliters of the stuff.

So we're talking 237 times the normal amount of pesticide you would normally eat.

Would you drink 237 glasses of water in a single sitting and expect to come out fine?

Because obviously, there is no way that volumes of anything ingested has any effect on how the substance effects your body.

Or how about a shot of vodka. Many people enjoy a drink. I doubt many would think taking 237 shots of vodka is good for you.
Click to expand...

While the 8 oz question was absurd, if the pesticides are not easily flushed from the system, then a small amount eaten regularly could cause cumulative damage. The study referenced indicated that pesticide residue was present in the urine of children much more frequently in conventional produce. It also noted that the same did not appear to be true for healthy adults. On the other hand, unless your water quality has issues, this is not going to be the case for water.
 
NikolaeVarius said:
There have been many many MANY taste tests with many different brands of organic foods and others and none of them have shown that organic foods taste better.
Click to expand...

that's because organic is very similar to gmo.

i think they're talking about fresh produce from a farmer's market versus store-bought produce.

farmers market produce has WAY better flavor and texture than store-bought food. it doesn't keep well, though.
 
eits said:
that's because organic is very similar to gmo.

i think they're talking about fresh produce from a farmer's market versus store-bought produce.

farmers market produce has WAY better flavor and texture than store-bought food. it doesn't keep well, though.
Click to expand...

By the time it's put out in the produce section of a supermarket, it has been off the vine for days to weeks.

It's not surprising that a farmers market is much better tasting, nor do you think much about any preservatives sprayed on the produce to have it keep in the supermarket.

If veggies are out of season and you want it, frozen is your best bet.
 
BoyBoopy said:
By the time it's put out in the produce section of a supermarket, it has been off the vine for days to weeks.

It's not surprising that a farmers market is much better tasting, nor do you think much about any preservatives sprayed on the produce to have it keep in the supermarket.

If veggies are out of season and you want it, frozen is your best bet.
Click to expand...

yup
 
NikolaeVarius said:
So lets say that there is 1 milliliter of pesticide on every piece of fruit that is ingested. There is most likely MUCH MUCH MUCH less than that.

8 ounces of pesticide is 237 or so milliliters of the stuff.

So we're talking 237 times the normal amount of pesticide you would normally eat.

Would you drink 237 glasses of water in a single sitting and expect to come out fine?

Because obviously, there is no way that volumes of anything ingested has any effect on how the substance effects your body.

Or how about a shot of vodka. Many people enjoy a drink. I doubt many would think taking 237 shots of vodka is good for you.
Click to expand...

If it's truly harmless, then it would pass through the body if you drank 8 fluid oz of it. Obviously, it's not harmless. Instead, the claim is that the amounts are too small to be harmful. As others have already said, some chemicals get stored in the body and build up over time. When does it suddenly go from harmless to harmful?

I don't believe there is some threshold where it crosses to harmful. Instead, it's always harmful and more of it building up over time leads to bigger effects.
 
http://www.naturalnews.com/037108_Stanford_Ingram_Olkin_Big_Tobacco.html

NaturalNews has learned one of the key co-authors of the study, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an "anti-science" propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.
Click to expand...

Here's a document from 1976 which shows financial ties between Philip Morris and Ingram Olkin, co-author of the recent organic foods study: http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/22205.html

The so-called "research project" was proposed by Olkin, who was also at one time the chairman of Stanford's Department of Statistics.

Olkin worked with Stanford University to develop a "multivariate" statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics (or to confuse people with junk science). ....

This research ultimately became known as the "Dr. Ingram Olkin multivariate Logistic Risk Function" and it was a key component in Big Tobacco's use of anti-science to attack whistleblowers and attempt to claim cigarettes are perfectly safe.
Click to expand...

Who is George H Poste?
http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/george-poste-bio.aspx

• Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
• Member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
• Served on the Monsanto board since February 2003.
• Former member of the Defense Science Board of the U.S. Department of Defense.

Stanford University has also accepted $5 million in donations from food giant Cargill (a big supporter of the biotech industry) in order to expand Stanford's Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). "Food security" is a euphemism for genetically engineered crops. Much of the research conducted there is done to try to advocate GMOs (http://foodsecurity.stanford.edu/search/?query=genetically+modified&c...).
Click to expand...
:colbert:
 
I aint no hippy but I sure as hell am not eating Monsanto GMO creations if I can avoid it by buying local organic.
 
You kill it and you grow it...then you eat it only and nothing else....that's your healthy organic.
 
Jeff7 said:
Lulz. 🙂


Though that site there also looks more than just a little bit suspect.
Fluoride is a ploy to poison people, vaccines are a fraud, "sunlight causes cancer" is a hoax, and of course, chemtrails.
Click to expand...


double luuuuuuuuuuulz

Olkin worked with Stanford University to develop a "multivariate" statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics (or to confuse people with junk science). As this page describes on the use of these statistical models: "Obviously, if one chooses convenient mathematical functions, the result may not conform to reality."
Click to expand...

😵

what a piece of garbage website. ....at least we know that redneck hillbillies and dirty hippies are equally culpable of abusing and exploiting science.

Further, it's funny to see guys like spidey take rigorous, peer-reviewed, fantastic science and trash it simply because of "global warming fantasy" due to those "conspiracists" that work in science; turn right back around and use the same science, misread it and fail to understand it--completely--to try and argue for some horseshit that the paper never really claims.
 
Ns1 said:
all I see is conspiracy conjecture without any proof that the study was done incorrectly.

seriously, there is no proof whatsoever on that page, it just rambles on about tobacco influence and how statistics lie.


(i make no stand one way or another on the topic at hand)
Click to expand...

There is some evidence to show both ways out there, however it just varies depending who is doing the study and what individuals and companies they are looking at. Any large corporation is likely going to do what they can to keep the profits up and people buying if they think it can be gotten away with.
 
Ns1 said:
LOL at this entire fucking site. It's like christiannewsdaily or whatever
Click to expand...

I agree, the site itself sucks. The article is also way over sensationalized - however, if you weed through the exaggerations and name calling, you see they do have several important citations that show the study may not have been so unbiased. Too bad it takes a whackjob site to expose it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top