"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

Little "Billy" writes

" . . . aw, screw it, GFY."

and in another message again writes:

"Now you can GFY ;O) ."

Then feign he is unfairly attacked, attempting to sidetrack the fact he
cannot defend his unfounded claims by stating " Ad hominems and derision,
that's all you got? LOL ;O)"

Wow, another jewel in a long list from the little boy who tells folks to
go **** themself everytime he is proved wrong! ...

Blah, blah, blah, I thought we were talking about nutrients in plants,
which is why you choose the praise of a company (I noticed you left out
their url [http:hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/) that prides
itself on working with biotech companies, to minimize the favorable
reports from the University of California at Davis, and others.


Have you sobered up from your all night binge yet, billy? When you do, go
back and "notice" I gave you that url on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:30
AM so you must not have noticed very much, perhaps because you were again
Drunk While Typing.

I realize it may be after you graduate the 7th grade this next year, but
when you can comprehend the thread, try to address the contradictions I
outlined from your jumbled, disjointed references you erroneously believe
shows that organic is better.

Just for fun, here is yet another refutation of your claim from one of the
very UC-Davis PhDs in that jumbled up mess you cite as proof?


" At the 66th Annual meeting and Food Expo in Orlando FL, Dr. Diane Barrett,
Food Science & Technology Dept, UC-Davis said she cannot conclusively say
that organic fruit is healthier. Barrett said that in one study, there were
signs that the total phenolic levels were higher in the organic product, And
(sic) there were higher levels of vitamin C in frozen organic tomatoes. But
neither the levels of lycopene, an antioxidant, nor some of the minerals
were noticeably higher in the organic product. In another study there was
no significant increase in vitamin C and lycopene levels between the organic
and conventionally grown products"



IFT Media Relations, Chicago, Il



But lets stay on your claim of organic superiority and address the most
exhaustive study
todate, the UK's FSA study completed this summer( 2009) that says "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."



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




You can try to refute the study, billy, but you can't with any real
scientific evidence, just observational selection

inferences from the many pro-organo organizations. But you wouldn't want to
quote an "industry hack " that have may
have a hidden agenda or praise as you so often infer the chem folks do,
would you?



Just saying something is true is a lot different than actually proving it.
You fail at proving you claims a lot.



Again, the BS trademark political commentaries are snipped.