"Billy" whines like a little girl in message
...
and in article
,
when little billy childishly wrote: Now you can
GFY ;O) .

So you want to continue arguing your ignorance by referencing your Internet
abstract articles of papers you can't get, Amazon book reviews of books you
don't buy and google references you don't read through?

billy, you whine like a little Valley Bitch about something you still
fail to show is true, yet you cast dispersions on an article that gives you
some of the specific details that you say you want to see. It also gives
leads to the data source, so as you claim, you can further research the
subject. (sure you will...)

I gave you the information you asked for. Poverty or not, it gave more
specific detail than all your disjointed, underlined, BS crap did. As
usual, your referencing a massive volume of BS is still going to equal BS.
The onus is not on me to prove anything to you nor to play your silly ass
little games. Your penchant for SALG and drunken diatribes are quite
apparent.

You have a very bad habit of juvenile google researching and still you
never thoroughly reading your cherry picked sources. It is thinly veiled
information that you think illustrates your point and disregards anything
that would contradict your "facts". But in case you missed the basic
interrogatives my article gave I will include them here so you don't get
confused again. Also, If you need a lesson in the basic interrogatives, let
me know, I can recommend some remedial programs for you.

"Plant Research Technologies Inc., an independent analytical laboratory in
San Jose, California," (The one you call an industry hack because you
can't refute the study so you have to cast dispersions on it as a
industry insider. As if Mitchell and the Organic Center don't have a
connection!) stated that :

"Tomatoes (Patio Pride) demonstrated a mean increase of 50 percent in
vitamin and mineral content. Of the 14 values tested, the hydroponics
tomatoes showed increases in five and modest decreases of 25 to 30 percent
in three. Sweet peppers (Gypsy) showed a mean increase of 150 percent -
increases in nine of the 14 values tested and equal to soil-grown in the
remaining five. The sweet peppers tested up to 300 percent higher in
vitamins B2 and B3. A literature search including USDA, EPA and FDA
publications, plus reports from university and private industry sources on
the nutritional content of soil-grown crops was used in the study

Nutritional analysis included vitamins A, B1 (thiamin), B2 (riboflavin), B3
(niacin), B6 (pyridoxine), C and E. The plant analysis included nitrogen,
sulfur, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, calcium, sodium, iron, aluminum,
manganese, copper, boron and zinc.

The tomatoes were grown in an Aquafarm system and the peppers in an AeroFlo
system both using hydroponic nutrients. The hydroponic produce was also
tested for heavy metals and chemical residues on the EPA's priority list.
None were detected."

Pretty specific details in there for a short article, billy. Quite opposite
of the thin dogma you give in that load of BS you reference as proof.

This is specific, measurable information, something you so often fail to
give in your quest for us heathens to see the organic light. Perhaps if you
offer 72
virgins to work the 40 acres and a mule dream you also promise when on your
organic soapbox.

What did your book author Pollan and your google scientific
articles actually show? the definition of a Phenolic? the actual
bioflavonoids you refer to? The quantified amounts? The exact conditions
each were grown in?

No, none of those things, just more organic supposition to create subject
hyperbole.

I find nothing to address any of the basic interrogatives, nothing. just
references to references that suggest it MAY BE true. The reference that
Mitchell's work is going to be reviewed by the UK's FSA seemed to be a
good lead, yet it also failed to be conclusive as evidenced by the UK's
FSA. So all
you have is hyperbole.

"The Davis researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown
fruits and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic
acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols."

OK, who, what, why, when, where, and how? What is meant by "significant",
"otherwise sustainably"?
Your references again fail to show any specifics, billy. It wold be nice to
know the study he is refering to with such a claim.

And this one?

"The Davis authors hypothesize that plants being defended by man-made
pesticides don¹t need to work as hard to make their own polyphenol
pesticides".

OK, where is some proof to the hypothesize and again, where are the basic
interrogatives? Do
try to remember that the subject was hydroponics, not conventional, not
organic... hydroponics, a subject you know little to nothing about.

Here is another quote from your reference of Pollan: " A second explanation
(one that
subsequent research seems to support) MAY BE that the radically simplified
soils in which chemically fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw
ingredients needed to synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more
vulnerable to
attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be."

"...seems to support" ..."MAY BE"? Real scientific info coming from a book
writer guy worrying about the psychological rearing of a pig being killed
for dinner. and what is this? "....as we know conventionally grown plants
tend to be"?

Do you dare attempt to prove that tidbit of junk science with a MAYBE
theory? MAYBE he is a popular writer but using Pollan as an authoritative
source is hardly science.

Now, lets go to your google references you hide in that jumbled mess you
posted
and note this passage from those disjointed and redundant references:

"The findings add to a SMALL BODY OF LITERATURE
showing higher levels of antioxidants in some organic produce, including
research out of the UC-Davis showing higher levels of phenols in some
berries."
(Was this Mitchell's research of her research?)

AND THIS LITTLE REVEALING TIDBIT, ALSO FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES

"Building solid evidence confirming the benefits of organic fruits and
vegetables over conventionally grown produce IS HAMPERED by wide
variances in organic farming, ranging from soil and climate differences to
variations in crops, seasons and farmer philosophies, said Diane Barrett,
also a researcher with the UC-Davis department of food science and
technology."

AND AGAIN FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES

"We need MORE controlled and real-life commercial studies, and we NEED
BETTER collaboration between researchers to get a broader look at
growing systems," said Barrett."

Did that fellow UC-Davis researcher infer Mitchell needs more controlled and
real-life commercial studies? that solid evidence is hampered? that there
is a small body of literature and that better research is needed?

Funny, the UK's FSA report this summer came to the very same conclusion.
little scientific evidence to support the overly broad claim organic is
better.

The controversial and peer reviewed UK's FSA report looked at the whole
organic is better claim that you recite ad naseum.
1st review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...appendices.pdf

2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf

peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1


"Dr. Dangour, of the LSHTM's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention
Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: 'A SMAll NUMBER
of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically
and
conventionally produced crops and livestock, but
these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review
indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of
organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional
superiority."

ohh...A SMAll NUMBER...This really ****ed off the Organic community which
is
still up in arms and as you often do, disparage his ancestry, his loyalty
and his scientific knowledge. Shortly after, the French claim they had a
study to prove it true and the Swedes one that supported the FSA.... Still a
host of
articles abound written from that FSA press release, many with the exact
verbiage,
depending on the ideological bent of the writer, few of any worth
addressing the actual report contents.

It is a good bet there will be much further debate on all this but right now
there is no one that has any real answers, just best guess and a bunch of
the same myths you spout.

But due note your Dr. Mitchell's studies were in that FSA study. I am not
knocking Mitchell's studies in the context of research, but you still have
no
real idea of what she is researching and what her findings actually are.
What is the "significant difference you claim? Is is a PPM? is it 1 or
perhaps
3 mmol kg¯ 1 gram more? What specifically is the difference of what
compound and how does it affect the plant and more importantly, humans?

So all very interesting, yet, again..... still absolutely NOTHING to do
with
Hydroponics, which BTW, I will still maintain does all that organic claims
and even better; lower pesticides,better growth, higher yields, less
pollution, less labor, less enviro footprint and does it all with the very
chemical
salts that you claim kills the earth and uses much less water. And yes,
tastes as good as or better.
BTW, If called for, I can control stress environments much easier and more
precisely hydroponically
than you could ever attempt to do organically.

"Multiple biotic and aboitic factors can influence levels of phenolics
antioxidants in fruit and vegetables and it is important to consider these
factors when sampling and compiling values."
Dr. A. Mitchell

So without a recognized standard, data is all subjective. If subjective,
how can one say it is an accurate comparison and therefore one is better.
YOU don't get to change facts to suit your arguement.

Now STFU, go play your SLAG with someone else that doesn't know you better
or
someone that will put up with your drunken diatribes. There is no more
audience for you to play hillbilly professor to.