Organic food?

[JesusHMuhammad]

False dichotomy, really.

Really, that's a false dichotomy? If so, what would be the myriad of other options?

I'm sorry but this is a complete non-sequitur and reads more like a conspiracy theory diatribe. I fail to see the link between studies dismissing issues regarding tobacco written several decades ago and contemporary longitudinal discourse on the efficacy of pesticides.

Really, a non-sequitur and reads more like a conspiracy theory diatribe?
I simply make two comparisons to factual events and provided direct quotes from the top federal agencies to back up my claim.
I could provide hundreds of other examples, all you have to do is Google them for yourself. You will see that we are not talking "decades ago" but very recently and now. Here is another conspiracy diatribe from the New York Times.
Cigarette Company Paid for Lung Cancer Study

As for the conspiracy theory battle over lead poisoning, here is Rebecca Adler's thesis on
Clair Cameron Patterson

CLAIR PATTERSON’S BATTLE AGAINST LEAD POLLUTION

[Losty]

I like potato chips....

[JesusHMuhammad]

I can only say two things.

1. I agree with you that companies will market products as "organic" even when they are not because it is of little cost to them to do so and of little consequence if they are caught lying. Let me say that I am also sorry to hear of your plight. I think we probably agree on most of what we are talking about.

2. My stance is simply based on common sense and parsimony. Even if pesticides are harmless, why would I add them to food if I don't have to?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

False dichotomy, really.

Really, that's a false dichotomy? If so, what would be the myriad of other options?

Perhaps you could re-read my post where I point out at least one synthesis of the supposed opposing perspectives?

I'm sorry but this is a complete non-sequitur and reads more like a conspiracy theory diatribe. I fail to see the link between studies dismissing issues regarding tobacco written several decades ago and contemporary longitudinal discourse on the efficacy of pesticides.

Really, a non-sequitur and reads more like a conspiracy theory diatribe?
I simply make two comparisons to factual events and provided direct quotes from the top federal agencies to back up my claim.
I could provide hundreds of other examples, all you have to do is Google them for yourself. You will see that we are not talking "decades ago" but very recently and now. Here is another conspiracy diatribe from the New York Times.

---

Cigarette Company Paid for Lung Cancer Study

As for the conspiracy theory battle over lead poisoning, here is Rebecca Adler's thesis on
Clair Cameron Patterson

CLAIR PATTERSON’S BATTLE AGAINST LEAD POLLUTION

---

1. Yes, really, a non-sequitur and an irrelevant diatribe. The link between cigarette companies and studies which dismiss claims of of their harm for humans and the environment has precisely NOTHING to do with organic food. It is an association fallacy and I and everyone else is ignoring it.
2. I am not googling to assist you with your thesis. I stand by mine; I am unable to think, to date, of a single conclusive study that indicates 'organic' food provides anything above and beyond so called 'in-organic' food
3. Please desist in presuming I'm American. Not everyone is American.
4. If possible, could you utilise the quotation function as I have above? I understand that you are new and so I don't doubt you are unfamiliar with our board format, which is no problem. However if this debate expands any further people will find it very difficult to quote you properly.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. I agree with you that companies will market products as "organic" even when they are not because it is of little cost to them to do so and of little consequence if they are caught lying. Let me say that I am also sorry to hear of your plight. I think we probably agree on most of what we are talking about.

It's almost impossible to be "caught lying" with regards to marketing. When people have a poor understanding of what it means for something to be organic, more specifically certified organic, then the job of the marketer is even easier. It's true that it costs next to nothing to print a word on a box, but for a company to make the organic claim and not run afoul of law the product does, indeed, have to meet the requirements set forth by the NOP. There are things allowed by the NOP that some people don't feel ought to be, sure. Are the producers or marketers lying in those cases? No.

---

For example. Frozen Organic Dinners. These things often have some pretty novel ingredients in them. Turn it over and ask yourself how anything "organic" can have 3 items on the plate but 70 constituent parts (only 3 of which bearing any resemblance to an actual food item)? Why are corn byproducts listed? Do all of the ingredients have to be from a certified producer? Turns out, no. The majority of the ingredients are just GRAS additives associated with the process of creating a frozen dinner. They're only marginally less processed than a hungry man meal and just about as nutritious. They're also well within the standards set forth by the NOP.

There's really very little incentive for any given company to lie and claim that their products are organic when its so easy to actually offer an organic product - from the point of view of a processor. You can make it with most of the same ingredients you already had lying around, using the same equipment and process that you used the day before boxing up "non-organic" meals.

---

2. My stance is simply based on common sense and parsimony. Even if pesticides are harmless, why would I add them to food if I don't have to?

No reason that I can think of. Producers (be they organic or "traditional) face the same choice daily. Why spend the money on the pesticides, licenses, and labor if you don't have to? There are some situations in which a producer might get away with not applying -any- pesticides, but probably not for long, and definitely not on any appreciable scale. Unless you grow your own food and thusly know exactly what -you've- done to it...you're eating foods that have taken a bath in a variety of pesticides and other toxins before it ever reached your table. This goes for the organics just as much as any traditional crops.

[JesusHMuhammad]

False dichotomy, really.

Really, that's a false dichotomy? If so, what would be the myriad of other options?

Perhaps you could re-read my post where I point out at least one synthesis of the supposed opposing perspectives?

Really, a non-sequitur and reads more like a conspiracy theory diatribe?
I simply make two comparisons to factual events and provided direct quotes from the top federal agencies to back up my claim.
I could provide hundreds of other examples, all you have to do is Google them for yourself. You will see that we are not talking "decades ago" but very recently and now. Here is another conspiracy diatribe from the New York Times.

---

Cigarette Company Paid for Lung Cancer Study

As for the conspiracy theory battle over lead poisoning, here is Rebecca Adler's thesis on
Clair Cameron Patterson

CLAIR PATTERSON’S BATTLE AGAINST LEAD POLLUTION

---

1. Yes, really, a non-sequitur and an irrelevant diatribe. The link between cigarette companies and studies which dismiss claims of of their harm for humans and the environment has precisely NOTHING to do with organic food. It is an association fallacy and I and everyone else is ignoring it.

I think the problem here is your poor understanding of the English language.
You may want to look up the words you are misusing. Again, I'll stick to facts (which you seem to not care about).

diatribe: a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.

When was I being forceful or bitter? (besides right now?)

irrelevant: not connected with or relevant to something.

I simply used two examples related to human health to talk about another human health issue. How is that not relevant? We are talking about the health of the human body.

association fallacy: a red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.

I picked these two examples based on human health and the fact that in both cases, the interest in big business does not align with the interest of human health. The point was to give other examples of misalignment in the context of human health.

non-sequitur: an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises

Since you weren't able to comprehend the basic premise of my argument, it makes little sense to explain to you.

false dichotomy: a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

Again, you offer NO other alternatives than the ones I proposed. That means this is a regular old fashioned dichotomy.

Just so you know what one looks like, here is a real example of a DIATRIBE replete with false dichotomy, non-sequiturs, and association fallacies.

Let me break it down for you in simpleton terms that a non-American
like you might understand. You have a red crayon and a blue crayon.
You can have one to do your ABC's, but not the other. Which will you
pick? If you pick the red crayon, you can not do your ABC's in blue
crayon. Since you want to to do your ABC's in blue, but you picked red
you are not able to do your ABC's. Therefore you have a poor
command of English and therefore you must not be an American.

I'd like to add one more word to your English vocabulary, sarcasm.






2. I am not googling to assist you with your thesis. I stand by mine; I am unable to think, to date, of a single conclusive study that indicates 'organic' food provides anything above and beyond so called 'in-organic' food
3. Please desist in presuming I'm American. Not everyone is American.
4. If possible, could you utilise the quotation function as I have above? I understand that you are new and so I don't doubt you are unfamiliar with our board format, which is no problem. However if this debate expands any further people will find it very difficult to quote you properly.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Please use the quotation function - it's there for a reason.

I think the problem here is your poor understanding of the English language.
You may want to look up the words you are misusing. Again, I'll stick to facts (which you seem to not care about).

Irrelevant, unresponsive, aggressive for no reason. Ignored. You also haven't posted any facts aside a couple of excerpts from spokespeople from whatever bodies (presumably) in the US.

I can only assume that because you have decided to attack me rather than reply to my points you have nothing to say. Figures

diatribe: a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.

When was I being forceful or bitter? (besides right now?)

Your initial, conspiracy-esqe post (earlier in this thread) could accurately be described as a diatribe. Your insinuation were that 'studies' were in cahoots with, well, 'someone'/'something' linked to farming/food production industry. Citation needed.

irrelevant: not connected with or relevant to something.
I simply used two examples related to human health to talk about another human health issue. How is that not relevant? We are talking about the health of the human body.

association fallacy: a red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.

I picked these two examples based on human health and the fact that in both cases, the interest in big business does not align with the interest of human health. The point was to give other examples of misalignment in the context of human health.

Utter tosh. It is indeed a false association to link two completely unassociated topics such as smoking and food production and draw the conclusions that you have done so. your response of association via 'human health' has been met repeatedly on this thread with the response that there is no study that conclusive shows that organic food(s) have an overarching beneficial effect beyond supposed 'non-organic' food. this is something you've failed to respond to.

non-sequitur: an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises

Since you weren't able to comprehend the basic premise of my argument, it makes little sense to explain to you.

Un-responsive. Ignored.

false dichotomy: a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

Again, you offer NO other alternatives than the ones I proposed. That means this is a regular old fashioned dichotomy.

Actually I did. you just didn't read it...or respond to it. So, again, un-responsive, ignored.

---

Just so you know what one looks like, here is a real example of a DIATRIBE replete with false dichotomy, non-sequiturs, and association fallacies.

Let me break it down for you in simpleton terms that a non-American
like you might understand. You have a red crayon and a blue crayon.
You can have one to do your ABC's, but not the other. Which will you
pick? If you pick the red crayon, you can not do your ABC's in blue
crayon. Since you want to to do your ABC's in blue, but you picked red
you are not able to do your ABC's. Therefore you have a poor
command of English and therefore you must not be an American.

I'd like to add one more word to your English vocabulary, sarcasm.

---

Well thank you for that informative and well thought through lesson.

---

Incidentally, as an aside, there does appear to be some peripheral evidence that livestock fed on 'organic' food show a decreased level of gram negative bacteria when kept & slaughtered. However, there appears to be no research that concludes of health benefits for humans:

Magkos, F. et al (2003) "Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence", International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 54 (4), pp. 357-371
Magkos, F. et al (2006) "Organic food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of Mind? A Critical review of the literature", Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 46 (1), pp. 23-56

Almost every article I've perused through scholar, Cam. Uni press , SAGE and Wiley seem to agree that the body of evidence is not well established and, equally, that any conclusion drawn that organic food is inherently healthier is premature in light of this lack of evidence.

[JesusHMuhammad]

there is no study that conclusive shows that organic food(s) have an overarching beneficial effect beyond supposed 'non-organic' food. this is something you've failed to respond to.

My stance is simply based on common sense and parsimony. Even if pesticides are harmless, why would I add them to food if I don't have to?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

there is no study that conclusive shows that organic food(s) have an overarching beneficial effect beyond supposed 'non-organic' food. this is something you've failed to respond to.

My stance is simply based on common sense and parsimony. Even if pesticides are harmless, why would I add them to food if I don't have to?

If you don't want to add them to your food or indeed eat food that's had them added to it, then that's entirely up to you and nobody can say you can't.

I think where we're at a juncture is I'm forwarding the thesis that, owing to the massive numbers of people that need food in today's world, we need pesticides in order to maintain (or grow) the current salvageable harvests (billions is wasted each year on top of this).

I certainly agree that intensive farming needs to be looked at, as does the methodologies that surround mass food production.

In the EU for example there has been a big debate over neonicotinoids and their harmful effects on bees (I love bees). Not enough research means conclusions have been drawn on both sides that's not conducive to solving the issues of why the numbers of bees are diminishing.

[JesusHMuhammad]

there is no study that conclusive shows that organic food(s) have an overarching beneficial effect beyond supposed 'non-organic' food. this is something you've failed to respond to.

My stance is simply based on common sense and parsimony. Even if pesticides are harmless, why would I add them to food if I don't have to?

If you don't want to add them to your food or indeed eat food that's had them added to it, then that's entirely up to you and nobody can say you can't.

I think where we're at a juncture is I'm forwarding the thesis that, owing to the massive numbers of people that need food in today's world, we need pesticides in order to maintain (or grow) the current salvageable harvests (billions is wasted each year on top of this).

I certainly agree that intensive farming needs to be looked at, as does the methodologies that surround mass food production.

In the EU for example there has been a big debate over neonicotinoids and their harmful effects on bees (I love bees). Not enough research means conclusions have been drawn on both sides that's not conducive to solving the issues of why the numbers of bees are diminishing.

Ah.. I see. We are clearly talking about two different things. I am talking about a personal choice and you are talking about feeding the world. Of course, since I didn't mention anything about feeding the world or mention anything about "increased" or "overarching" health benefits of organic food, I can see where you became confused.
And, thank you for allowing me to eat what I want. That is really big of you.