12 May 06
1 edit
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=10587
edit: I asked an organic gardener friend o mine about this and he sent me the following links:
http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1103/droughtresearch.shtml
Given that we are entering an era of extreme climate fluctuations and global climate change, the research described here by the Rodale researchers is important. There is great need to develop food production systems that are adapted to climate conditions that are characterized by increased drought and flood. Organic and other crop management strategies that optimize soil organic matter, biological diversity, and crop robustness, should be our first line of defense.
http://www.newfarm.org/features/1004/delate/index.shtml
Results from the first three years of LTAR were published in the American Journal of Alternative Agriculture in June 2003. What they found is what's slowly becoming the great open secret of farming in the Midwest: Organic yields are the same as conventional, but costs are lower, and thanks to strong organic price premiums—especially for soybeans—returns are much higher.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11327522&dopt=Citation
RESULTS: Organic crops contained significantly more vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus and significantly less nitrates than conventional crops. There were nonsignificant trends showing less protein but of a better quality and a higher content of nutritionally significant minerals with lower amounts of some heavy metals in organic crops compared to conventional ones. CONCLUSIONS: There appear to be genuine differences in the nutrient content of organic and conventional crops.
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/8418/abstract.html
In conclusion, we were able to demonstrate that an organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to organophosphorus pesticides that are commonly used in agricultural production. We also concluded that these children were most likely exposed to these organophosphorus pesticides exclusively through their diet.
12 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think there is an ongoing study of pesticides effecting animals and the gist of it is, a single chemical well below the effect limit does no harm but the exposure of low dose chemicals together are having lethal effects. I will scout around for the link but its recent. Its the interaction of low dose chemicals that causes problems not levels of a single kind.
High doses of pesticides do cause cancer, but there is no evidence that low concentrations have any negative effects whatsoever. indeed, there is positive data to suggest they're actually good for you. Feel free to disregard the science if you choose.
14 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Darth SpongeProfessor Trewavas FRS FRSE is a professor at Edinburgh University, one of the top universities in the UK and indeed the world. Prof Trewavas is also a Fellow of the Royal Socieities of London and Edinburgh. He is on the UK GM advisory board. Hardly some intellectual lightweight.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=10587
edit: I asked an organic gardener friend o mine about this and he sent me the following links:
http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1103/droughtresearch.shtml
Given that we are entering an era of extreme climate fluctuations and global climate change, the research described here n were most likely exposed to these organophosphorus pesticides exclusively through their diet.
Scientific papers, especially review papers, require things to be put in context. No one experiment can tell you everything about a system, so referencing other studies to show how your paper slots into the current knowledge base is essential. Your instant dismissal only demonstrates a lack of understanding in how scientific papers are written, not a flaw of the author.
In response to your question about the decrease in soil fertility you have to take things in context. The population in 1950 was only about 2 billion. It's currently 6.5 billion. Pre-agricultural revolution the population was measured in hundreds of millions. The yield per unit area was far lower than nowadays, and rotational agriculture was practiced to allow the land to recover. Nowadays we require far more from our land, but with organic farming we're not putting it back. If we converted wholeheartedly to organic we would have a food deficit, not surplus. Ask someone who grew up in Britain during WWII about food shortages and what it's like to be truely hungry, what they tell you will open your eyes. Likewise, farming of the past could hardly be considered "organic" in the context that it's used nowadays. Fertilisation using animal or even human excretia was used frequently, thus returning nutrients to the soil, unlike nowadays where the nutrients are flushed down the dunny, never to be seen by the soil again. You'd be doing far better things for the environment by eating local produce, whether it's organic or not.
14 May 06
Originally posted by sonhouseat the concentrations used (millionths of the concentration required to have any toxic effect), so I doubt it's a problem.
I think there is an ongoing study of pesticides effecting animals and the gist of it is, a single chemical well below the effect limit does no harm but the exposure of low dose chemicals together are having lethal effects. I will scout around for the link but its recent. Its the interaction of low dose chemicals that causes problems not levels of a single kind.
14 May 06
Originally posted by Darth SpongeThe "experiment" described in the first link is not a fair trial. They are applying organic matter to the "organic" trial, but not to the conventional trial. The experiment is really testing whether the addition of organic matter (i.e. biomass) to the soil increases yield and the ability of the soil to retain water, not on the effects of pesticide, herbicide or inorganic fertiliser usage. Questions remain on whether the organic matter was supplied from a different site, or grown on that site the year previously. If it's a different site, you have to include the expenses of that other field,the growing and harvesting, transport and spreading of the organic matter onto the target field, and, of course, you're just taking nutrients from one place and spreading them onto another, not mitigating the problem, merely spreading it. If they were grown on the target field then you are requiring "fallow" years, the cost of which also has to be deucted from the revenue generated by the crop. It's simply not possible to maintain consistantly high yields in organic agriculture, without nutrient inputs of some type.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=10587
edit: I asked an organic gardener friend o mine about this and he sent me the following links:
http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1103/droughtresearch.shtml
Given that we are entering an era of extreme climate fluctuations and global climate change, the research described here ...[text shortened]... n were most likely exposed to these organophosphorus pesticides exclusively through their diet.
I'll get around to the others shortly.
15 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzconsidering his substantial resume, I'm surprised the "Pesticides are good for you" movement hasn't gotten more momentum academically.
Professor Trewavas FRS FRSE is a professor at Edinburgh University, one of the top universities in the UK and indeed the world. Prof Trewavas is also a Fellow of the Royal Socieities of London and Edinburgh. He is on the UK GM advisory board. Hardly some intellectual lightweight.
Scientific papers, especially review papers, require things to be pu ...[text shortened]... better things for the environment by eating local produce, whether it's organic or not.
15 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Darth SpongeI don't think anyone is saying "go out and drink some roundup", but Tony's point is that going too much the other way isn't good either.
considering his substantial resume, I'm surprised the "Pesticides are good for you" movement hasn't gotten more momentum academically.
15 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzthe extreme of "too much the other way" would be not to consume any pesticides at all. call me crazy, but I think I can live without any Vitamin DDT, despite the very disputable opinions of one illustrious Professor.
I don't think anyone is saying "go out and drink some roundup", but Tony's point is that going too much the other way isn't good either.
so, whadya think about those other articles?
15 May 06
Originally posted by Darth Spongei'll start at the other end. the ehponline article doesn't prove your point at all. all it says is people who eat crops with lower pesticide residues *surprise* excrete less pesticide metabolites. given that dietary exposure has long been known to be the primary source of pesticide exposure for urban inhabitants, how you can get a paper out of that work i don't know, but thats another story.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=10587
edit: I asked an organic gardener friend o mine about this and he sent me the following links:
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/8418/abstract.html
In conclusion, we were able to demonstrate that an organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to ...[text shortened]... en were most likely exposed to these organophosphorus pesticides exclusively through their diet.
15 May 06
Originally posted by Darth Spongewell where to begin. the article is written by one V Worthington, from Nutrikinetics. guess what nutrikinetics sells? strangely enough, organic foods. and you accuse science of conflicts of interest...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=10587
edit: I asked an organic gardener friend o mine about this and he sent me the following links:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11327522&dopt=Citation
RESULTS: Organic crops contained significantly more vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosp ...[text shortened]... appear to be genuine differences in the nutrient content of organic and conventional crops.
and now for the next point, the journal is the "Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine". the university i am at suffers from a subscription to this "journal", and its about the equivalent of "creation research quarterly". i have seen studies comparing the effect of writing "love" and "demon" in japanese onto cell culture bottles in this journal... in other words, rubbish
16 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI have to call BS on that.
It's everyones right to make their choices what they want to eat but it's also an undeniable truth that organic farming is less efficient, especially in terms of land area utilisation, and has detrimental long term effects on soil fertility. With a population set to exceed 10 billion in the next hundred years, where is the food going to come from if not intensive agriculture??
Organic farming isn't less efficient in terms of output. Its just less efficient in terms of labour involved. Of course that doesn't matter if you work on a s an illegal in a Californianian, or in a Latin American banana plantation. Instead of good farming practices, everything just gets doused in pesticides, including the poorly paid/no health care workers.
BS also about the long term effects on soil fertility. Using good farming practices, ie: crop rotation, soil fertility would be much better than land doused in tonnes of chemicals. Organic farming allows fertilising, just not the unnaturaly fertilisers which have been polluting our rivers for years. BTW: How old is the earth? Why isn't it all infertile seeing as natural wild growth is organic growth?
Your posts in this thread sound like lobby talk from one of the agricorps pushing GM foods, like Monsanto. I'd ask you to examine from what position you are posting from, as you are obviously involved in the propogation of intensive (ie: poor) farming techniques.
Also, as a scientist, you should surely be aware that an increase in food supply to a biosystem results in increased population. Everytime.
D
16 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzRubbish again.
"It is not generally realised that this dose-related effect is also known to apply to many supposedly toxic chemicals, including arsenic, dioxins, some pesticides and fungicides. In fact, a little bit of poison or pollution can do you good, and serves to reduce the incidence of cancer. More than 30 separate investigations of about 500,000 people have sh ...[text shortened]... higher levels of pesticide than the general public, have much lower rates of cancer overall."
You seem to be basing your claims in the highly regulated first world. When we realise that a chemical is bad for us, we ban it here, but still produce it and sell it to unsuspecting third world producers.
http://www.nicanet.org/labor/nemegon-follow-up.php
http://www.tierramerica.net/2004/1106/iacentos.shtml
This is the world that you are promoting with your position. A life of misery for poor 3rd world workers being exploited by large multinationals, who can afford to commission "scientific" research to state that pesticides are good for you.
D