someone who knows what time it is

around somewhere. have you seen her newest book?

Good people there like David Korten and others.

...that my whole life's work has been a waste of time, of course I'm going to deny those facts and fight back to preserve some semblance of meaning to my existence.

I don't know which side of the debate is correct, but the reactions of both sides are utterly predictable. "My ego, my belief system, the thing that gives my life meaning is under attack. I will fight back." This applies to religions just as much as it applies to magical belief in organic foods.

religions just as much as it applies to "magical" belief in organic foods.

no, no bias there at all!!

And if I'm proven wrong I'm O.K. with that because I have no ego invested in that particular issue. I just don't tend to follow food fads.

virtually all our food was grown? really??? incidentally, your use of "magic organic" and "fad" does tend to suggest that you do, in fact, have ego involved.

she has her scare tactics down.

The study "only" lasted 2 years not the decades upon decades that she wanted which proves that long term health risks exist.

It's easy enough to poke holes in any study. Why did you only have an N of 100 and not 1,000? Why did it only last a decade and not two? Why did you only get a p value of .04 rather than .01? And so on.

I would be more convinced if they provided studies to back their concerns rather than simply poking holes in what others have put together.

/if this seems reminiscent of creationists snidely pointing out any real or perceived flaws in the theory of evolution while offering nothing to back their own claims there's a reason for it.

The Stanford study clearly pointed out that the longest study they had only lasted 2 years. They didn't try to misrepresent anything. The Standford study didn't create the empirical data, they just performed an objective analysis of what was already out there.

Furthermore the articled referenced in the OP is full of bullshit the Stanford study was specifically designed to cut through. For example the article included this gem:

Whether conventionally grown foods are any more or less healthy than organic foods at the point of consumption is not the only piece of the puzzle with regard to human health. There is essentially no way to argue that conventional, monocultural food is less ecologically destructive than organic food production. It facilitates erosion and increases in soil salinity, fosters nitrogen pollution of water resources, and requires massive inputs of pesticides to overcome the vulnerability of so many genetically similar organisms in such a small area, which in turn leads to declines in biodiversity.

This does not even factor in that the systems that must be set up to support conventional agriculture put farmers in a situation of having to push more and more out of the same acres of soil to pay for the expensive machinery, chemical inputs, etc. required to maintain their crops.

I have a similar opposition to GMO's. It is not that I believe they are potentially damaging to human health in themselves. No study has found that. However, they remove the smaller scale interaction between a food producer and his/her environment via selectively saving and breeding seeds, and forces dependence on corporations and their laboratories constantly developing new technologies to overcome the constraints of competing organisms, and that are, as a matter of basic biology, doomed to require constant redevelopment, at a much more expensive and energy-intensive scale than individual farmers and communities, and the varieties of seed stocks that they develop and save on their own.

I have a garden and I grow my produce organically. I do NOT believe organic food is really any better for me, but I DO believe that home gardening organically is more sustainable. And besides, composting is fun!

That research composite study is so flawed, it could only have been paid for by Monsanto and Big Chemical.

There is so much money directed toward denying that pesticides have harmful health effects or anything to do with the increased rate of hormone dependent cancers.

They never said that.

They said that 30% of conventional grow foods have pesticides, and organics 7%.

The lethality of pesticides wasn't the point of the study.

Darn, I interpreted it to say that there is no difference between organically grown food and conventionally grown food. Darn, guess I will have to keep paying slightly higher prices for organics.

If you want to pay twice as much for something with no proven health benefit, more power to you. There's nothing wrong with that. There are other reasons to choose organic, and there may be studies in the future which do actually prove a difference. All the Stanford study says is that right now, there is no proof of a health benefit.

This discussion turned into something almost as stupid as the study. Real quick. There is no real concern regarding the difference in nutritional value of organics and conventionally grown produce.

The concern is the effects of pesticides on health. That is why the study is flawed. It shows what we already know, but the way it is presented might make some people believe that there is no important difference between organics and conventionally grown produce.

there isn't, as far as nutrition goes. I don't know what other metric you have for "healthy," it seems pretty comprehensive to me.

I will admit, organic is probably better for the earth, but with the population we have now, I'm more concerned about feeding them. Lesser of two evils and all that.

Organics just don't produce the yields that conventional farming does.

In the long run it's unsustainable (how long is debatable), but I also don't want to see people dying of starvation. If somehow, someway we can get the population of the earth down, then great. Organic all the way.

and their funding should be public knowledge.

You can't simply wave around the Monsanto-boogie man and expect it all to go away.

I said the information presented from the study is flawed and then implied that due to the misdirection, it was probably paid for by special interests.

This study kind of reminds me of Romney's campaign, it states a conclusion that sounds good, but doesn't actually address the real problem. And you are defending it, that is quite curious.

Did you look for the source of funding?

Stanford is selling its good reputation

That research composite study is so flawed, it could only have been paid for by Monsanto and Big Chemical.

There is so much money directed toward denying that pesticides have harmful health effects or anything to do with the increased rate of hormone dependent cancers.

Assume what you will, but you know what you do when you assume; don't you? You make an "ass", out of both "you" and "me'. See? ASS, YOU (u), ME? Cute huh?

notice that I copy-and-pasted it?

The words I put together in the same post, brought you to a conclusion. This is what the Stanford study does, it leads the low-information reader to a conclusion. Just like the Romney campaign.

you counter their scientific study with a conspiracy theory and accuse them of appealing to a low-information reader?

They did the actual study. You just made an accusation. That is some extreme projection on your part.

where the writer says "Organics have 12% more nutrients." She totally misrepresents the study, almost to the point of lying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1292563

The low-information reader believes what they want to believe, regardless of science.

who funded it. have not yet found that information.

Oh snap!

sponsored such studies (and given what I know about that particular VA-- really surprised)

Seems a study the author quotes says the same exact thing.

Except she misquotes it, because she has the agenda.

now back it with evidence.

I could easily say this woman is being bribed by organic producers to make conventional crops seem like poison.

I have no proof of that. But I could claim it.

are simply making it up.

A keen observer would say that I never actually stated she was on the dole.

Now, if you could provide evidence to back the claim that this other study was funded by monsanto or some other evil corporation . . . ?

please do not put words in my post that were not there. talk about knee-jerk. also, please note, that NOWHERE did I say who funded it. if you were reading with any degree of comprehension, you would see that I ASKED who funded it. but, hey, nice try.

Beneficial soil organisms and the salts build up and create hard pan. This has been known for a long time and older methods of farming are less polluting and the food simply smells and tastes better.

I've no longer any earth to plant anything in, but the difference in the supermarket is clear. I had great harvest for years in all kinds of soil with organic amendments and compost. The more healthier the plant, the more resistant it is to disease and insects.

The fertilizer industry grew out of trying to maintain production on depleted farm land with topsoil damage. It's like meth on plants. The production of these chemical is not as safe as organic, but it's a lot faster.

There are people in all lines of things that don't study horticulture or realized the incredible ability of plants to adapt to different growing conditions with proper care. Many people don't know or even want to know where their food comes from or how it's made.

That's okay. Not everyone wants to spend their life in the field, not everyone wants to spend their lives reading books or playing on a computer. Some do, it's all part of being different. So as long as we have the choice about food, fine.

The difference in organically grown or chemcially grown food is not noticeable to a person whose palate is used to eating fast food or processed foods. The more one eats fruits and vegetables fresh, the more discerning the taste is.

Every one is the architect of their body. Those who are happy or feel they have no choice but to eat certain things will enjoy them. Others will not.

The information is there, so there is no use in putting anyone down. But if it comes to the choice of having no fruits and vegetables without bug spray, wash it and eat it because we need to eat them in whatever state they can be found, as long as they are clean.

She misquotes a study, and takes it as proof.

abstract of the study she quotes:

Frances Moore Lappe. I wasn't buying what they were selling, anyway.

Thank you

quality of organic produce and meat is huge. The fact that it is so different suggests to me that something significant is happening.

I've grown my own produce organically for decades, but just recently started using organic chicken from a farm down the road. After the first chicken, I knew I would never go back. So different, you would think it was a difference species.

I'm a life-long cook and eater, and I definitely know what things taste like.

have found that people can't tell the difference.

that my supermarket is carrying more and more organics all the time.

I fully accept that there is very little nutritional difference between organic and conventionally grown food.

at the end of the study she said she's feeding her kid organic fruits and vegetables.

Until I found a live spider in my salad.

Shortly after that I got let go from my well paid job, and now I couldnt afford organic, spiders or no spiders!

I'm still on my second beer, cheers!

Many, in fact most, people cannot afford to buy organic foods. So this is actually good news for most Americans. The fact that organic produce does not have more nutrients, and that the pesticide levels are under EPA set limits (no matter if you think those limits are too high or not) is good news.