In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"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
Being a scientist



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

See below for criticism of the Food Standards Agency, UK (who is
responsible for the above cites), which was accepted by them.
Also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai
for pro GMO - anti-organic sentiments on the part of the British
government. For more information see:
Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the
Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating
by Jeffrey M. Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...y-Engineered/d
p/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255374687&sr=1-1
, pages 5 - 44




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.

As are the the cites used to refute your position.



Once again, it's funny that you should hold me to a higher standard than
yourself, since the sites that you gave me are (1) a private lab that
does extensive work for the "biotech" industry, and (2) the UK's Food
Standards Agency which has already accepted criticism that it is, or
appears, to be bias against organic produce and in favor of GMOs.
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...inalreport.pdf
See: Recommendation 20 - It is clear that many stakeholders believe the
Agency has already made policy decisions on these issues and is not open
to further debate. The Agency should address the perceptions of these
stakeholders who have now formed views of the Agency founded on their
belief that the basis upon which the Agency¹s policy decisions were made
was flawed.

Specifically, see
1.7
1.7.1
While it is not within the remit of this Review to consider matters
relating to the internal structures or organisation of the Agency, it
must be noted that the role of the Advisory Committees in the devolved
countries was not always clear, both to those serving on the Committee
and to other stakeholder groups. Some questioned whether each of the
Advisory Committees functions in the same way and has the same level of
effectiveness and influence on Agency decisions.
While most stakeholders welcomed the Agency having a presence in the
devolved countries, there were some (mainly from the food industry) who
were concerned this structure adds a level to the decision-making
process and delays actions.
Specific issues raised
Early references to organic food, and to GM food, were highlighted
(unprompted by the Reviewers) by a number across the stakeholder groups.
It is clear that these two issues are still heavily influencing
stakeholders¹ perceptions of the Agency. In respect of both issues, the
perception of the vast majority was that the Agency had deviated from
its normal stance of making statements based solely on scientific
evidence, to giving the impression of speaking against organic food and
for GM food. This view was expressed not only by stakeholders
representing organic and GM interest groups, but by those who would be
regarded as supporters and natural allies of the Agency.


So, here again, is more information than you gave me.

Omnivore¹s Dilemma
p. 179

³The organic label is a marketing tool," Secretary Glickman said. ³It is
not a statement about food safety. Nor is 'organic' a value judgment
about nutrition or quality."
Some intriguing recent research suggests otherwise. A study by
University of California‹Davis researchers published in the Journal of
Agriculture and Food Chemistry in 2003 described an experiment in which
identical varieties of corn, strawberries, and blackberries grown in
neighboring plots using different methods (including organically and
conventionally) were compared for levels of vitamins and polyphenols.
Polyphenols are a group of secondary metabolites manufactured by plants
that we've recently learned play an important role in human health and
nutrition. Many are potent antioxidants; some play a role in preventing
or fighting cancer; others exhibit antimicrobial properties. 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.
The recent discovery of these secondary metabolites in plants has ought
our understanding of the biological and chemical complexity of foods to
a deeper level of refinement; history suggests we haven't gotten
anywhere near the bottom of this question, either. The first level was
reached early in the nineteenth century with the identification of the
macronutrients‹protein, carbohydrate, and fat. Having isolated these
compounds, chemists thought they'd unlocked the key to human nutrition.
Yet some people (such as sailors) living on diets rich in macronutrients
nevertheless got sick. The mystery was solved when scientists discovered
the major vitamins‹a second key to human nutrition. Now it's the
polyphenols in plants that we're learning play a critical role in
keeping us healthy. (And which might explain why diets heavy in
processed food fortified with vitamins still aren't as nutritious as
fresh foods.) You wonder what else is going on in these plants, what
other undiscovered qualities in them we've evolved to depend on.
In many ways the mysteries of nutrition at the eating end of the food
chain closely mirror the mysteries of fertility at the growing end: The
two realms are like wildernesses that we keep convincing ourselves our
chemistry has mapped, at least until the next level of complexity comes
into view. Curiously, Justus von Liebig, the nineteenth-century German
chemist with the spectacularly ironic surname, bears responsibility for
science's overly reductive understanding of both ends of the food chain.
It was Liebig, you'll recall, who thought he had found the chemical key
to soil fertility with the discovery of NPK, and it was the same Liebig
who thought he had found the key to human nutrition when identified the
macronutrients in food. Liebig wasn't wrong on either count, yet in both
instances he made the fatal mistake of thinking that what we knew about
nourishing plants and people was all we need to know to keep them
healthy. It's a mistake we'll probably keep repeating until we develop a
deeper respect for the complexity of food soil and, perhaps, the links
between the two.
But back to the polyphenols, which may hint at the nature of that link.
Why in the world should organically grown blackberries or corn contain
significantly more of these compounds? The authors of Davis study
haven't settled the question, but they offer two suggest theories. The
reason plants produce these compounds in the first place is to defend
themselves against pests and diseases; the more pressure from pathogens,
the more polyphenols a plant will produce. These compounds, then, are
the products of natural selection and, more specifically, the
coevolutionary relationship between plants and the species that prey on
them. Who would have guessed that humans evolved to profit from a diet
of these plant pesticides? Or that we would invent an agriculture that
then deprived us of them? The Davis authors hypothesize that plants
being defended by man-made pesticides don¹t need to work as hard to make
their own polyphenol pesticides. Coddled by us and our chemicals, the
plants see no reason to invest their sources in mounting a strong
defense. (Sort of like European nations during the cold war.)
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. NPK might be
sufficient for plant growth yet still might not give a plant everything
it needs to manufacture ascorbic acid or lycopene or resveratrol in
quantity. As it happens, many of the polyphenols (and especially a
sublet called the flavonols) contribute to the characteristic taste of a
fruit or vegetable. Qualities we can't yet identify, in soil may
contribute qualities we've only just begun to identify in our foods and
our bodies.
-----
And,
https://sharepoint.agriculture.purdu...ons/2-%20Wedne
sday,%20September%2017,%202008/Concurrent%20Session%203/The%20Organic%20v
s%20Conventional%20Debate%20-%20Can%20We%20Strike%20a%20Balance%20Between
%20Passion%20and%20Science.pdf
and,
http://www.agricultureinformation.co...g/18027-organi
c-vs-conventional-debate-continues.html
and,
http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-31531.html

It is true in some cases that judgement can't be reached be cause some
of the produce was purchase in markets and is of unknown provenance both
geographically and biologically, but if you really care about the truth,
you will notice that some of the studies we done of plants grown
specifically for the studies.

As usual, we have moved far from where your rant originally began, when
you cited the biotech support lab "Plant Research Technologies Inc." as
the source of the supposed nutritional superiority of hydroponically
grown produce.

Sorry, gunny, if you can't read, but that isn't my fault. Everything
is here to substantiate my assertions, except for he part where
chemfert fed plants grow faster (as it damages the soil ecosystem),
leading to more tender foliage (which happens to be where the nitrates
are stored), and that in turn attracts insect predators. Of course. if
you are growing indoors, there are no insects, and less flavonoids.

Take another look at the paucity of information in the cite you gave
http://hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/ from Plant Research
Technologies Inc. and see that they give no information to support their
report.

As for the reportage on Dr. Diane Barrett,
(" 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."), you have to know that she is a
scientist, and until she can confirm that she has covered every possible
variable in the produce being analyzed, she can't make a summary
judgement. However, if you have the eyes to see, and the wit to
comprehend, you will see from the cites above, that organic is usually
superior in nutrition, be they macro-nutrients, vitamins, or flavonoids.
This is in addition to "organic" being lower in pesticides and
friendlier to the environment. To be fair, one should also consider the
the cultivars grown (shelf-live vs. nutrition) and the distribution
system of field, to warehouse, to store, to consumer as opposed to from
field to consumer, and their impacts on the nutritional value of the
produce.

As usual, I await your ****ing and moaning ;O)
--