No, the article states you won't get more nutritional value from organic food; there's no mention in the article that states explictly that organic food is NOT better for you, in fact it states explicitly that they didn't study the pesticides. I err on the side of caution.
so, they will have to be replaced by something better, plain and simple. organic farming is something that's still in it's infancy, but it is certainly better than regular, industrial farming.
hh... to quote a sage I read once: "clean your food"
you quite happily ignore the fact that those poisons CAN'T be broken down by nature, and ergo : acummulate in nature and our bodies. how long can we afford THAT ? also see, for example : http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/effects.html
As for pollution, is dumping tons of manure over a larger area (thanks to lower densities) *really* better than chemical fertilizers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FertilizerYes; besides, organic fertilizer can also be dead plants.(we're also ignoring how much oil we have left...) salmonella: clean your food. and what about the Poisons?
stated as such, you are right. BUT. it is headlined 'No Health Benefits To Organic Food'; while anyone with a bit of brain should realise that it's also about the poisons(things poisonous to 'bugs' and weeds, are also poisonous to us).
from wikipedia (and from AAAS): "Along with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the US ban on DDT is cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle"
no, it finds something I already knew, but it is spread with the headline "No Health Benefits to Organic Food". THAT is wrong, because poisons are harmful.
nd then of course, there is the upon study from the European Union that will be released in the next month or so (that was completely ignored by the study this story is about), that also examines the same topic and looks at anti-oxidants, of which there are apparently a lot more in organic food than in the typical petrochemically fertilised foods most people eat.
the environment is still recuperation from DDT, after decades of disuse (there are a LOT of studies out there to confirm that). I let you make the connections yourself.
it shows that the article is tendentious at best. It is written *specifically* to undermine organic food, by misleading the public through ignoring the targets of organic food.
Slashdot Mirror
with more XP
oh, marriage is with Levels ...
Electric bicycles !
where walking from point A to point B might take 20 minutes or more.
bicycle!!
interesting read. glyphosate could be permitted then, just on the basis of biodegradabibilty. now. for the GMO-part though ...
No, the article states you won't get more nutritional value from organic food; there's no mention in the article that states explictly that organic food is NOT better for you, in fact it states explicitly that they didn't study the pesticides. I err on the side of caution.
in the US, that is. in the EU : there's regulation.
uses dangerous chemicals.
Yes.
And they use more of them, too
No, they are trying to limit the use ... (or they should, at least)
yes, the science looks sound, but i hate it when something crucial is left out in the headlines ... !!! we don't need a less informed public !
so, they will have to be replaced by something better, plain and simple. organic farming is something that's still in it's infancy, but it is certainly better than regular, industrial farming.
Modern pesticides are biodegradable.
YOUR SOURCE ? another than http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/good_wood/tox_herb.htmmonsanto please ...
any other sources maybe ? ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming
let me say this : organic farming is NOT simply throwing other kinds of poison on our food
hh... to quote a sage I read once: "clean your food"
you quite happily ignore the fact that those poisons CAN'T be broken down by nature, and ergo : acummulate in nature and our bodies. how long can we afford THAT ? also see, for example : http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/effects.html
Shamelessly stolen link
"locally produced" != "organic"
As for pollution, is dumping tons of manure over a larger area (thanks to lower densities) *really* better than chemical fertilizers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FertilizerYes; besides, organic fertilizer can also be dead plants.(we're also ignoring how much oil we have left ...)
salmonella: clean your food.
and what about the Poisons?
stated as such, you are right. BUT. it is headlined 'No Health Benefits To Organic Food'; while anyone with a bit of brain should realise that it's also about the poisons(things poisonous to 'bugs' and weeds, are also poisonous to us).
it's very dishartening to see there are people who don't want to understand that the mechanisms killing weeds and bugs, also kill us.
"less efficient" How much so ? and source ? what about polluting ourselves and the environment with stuff that stays poisonous for a LONG time ?
from wikipedia (and from AAAS):
"Along with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the US ban on DDT is cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle"
to find the opposite to what you want to hear
no, it finds something I already knew, but it is spread with the headline "No Health Benefits to Organic Food". THAT is wrong, because poisons are harmful.
DDT.
health benefits ?
like the absence of poisons ?
nd then of course, there is the upon study from the European Union that will be released in the next month or so (that was completely ignored by the study this story is about), that also examines the same topic and looks at anti-oxidants, of which there are apparently a lot more in organic food than in the typical petrochemically fertilised foods most people eat.
we'll see if THAT makes it into the headlines ...
the environment is still recuperation from DDT, after decades of disuse (there are a LOT of studies out there to confirm that). I let you make the connections yourself.
but they scored with people that only read headlines ... which is a large part of the population nowadays.
it shows that the article is tendentious at best. It is written *specifically* to undermine organic food, by misleading the public through ignoring the targets of organic food.
The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.
says it all really.