GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

Rusty Trombone · 18-10-2009, 10:07 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible,alt.quit.smoking.support

gunner wrote:
I spend some time today to review these links again and still find you can't
fault the
conclusions. You will, like so many of your belief have already, whine and
cry foul, but the proof is pretty soild. So stop teabagging and read it.

The UK's FSA independent study completed this summer( 2009) states :
"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
Who are these people, and when where these studies made?

you didn't read the link, did you?

2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf
Who are these people, and when where these studies made?

Again, you didn't read the link, did you?

peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1
"In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies,
conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of
nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher
content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a
difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient
categories analyzed."

So as I said, chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants,
making them a target for noxious insects.

You messed this one up also. Is this a quote from the link above it? No, so
separate the two and give a reference to your lead-in of your absurd
hypothesis; "chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants,
making them a target for noxious insects"

Who are these people and what are they talking about? You give a couple
of cites that don't identify themselves or what they are talking about.
Are you just pulling this out of your backside? What a bleeding ******.

I can see now you are really confused, mostly because you haven't read or
have you? Stop with the pseudo-intellectual BS and READ.

I did note that you screwed this last part up as much as you did the
first bit of jumbled crap you refer to as "citations". Suffice it to say
that the statement; " chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the
plants, making them a target for noxious insects" is a complete misstatement
of fact in whatever you are attempting . Pure supposition. No one said
"leaves", no one said "noxious insects", except you. We were also
discussing hydroponics, so to assume that excess nitrogen in a plant invites
pests in hydroponic food is a bit out there. I asked you for information on
your absurd claim and you dare to compare conventional and organic produce
with your jumbled up mess including Pollan quotes and links to UC-Davis.
Your links as usual, showed inconsistencies and half-truths. I gave you
the latest information conducted by FSA that included such information as
you hold to prove your point. The conclusion is the same as Dr. Barrett,
UC-Davis, echoed earlier; Any claim that organic produce is somehow
nutritionally superior is inconclusive.

Again, I also said I wasn't going to do your work for you. You must
actually read the studies to know what they say. Only then can you attempt
to refute them. You haven't done that so far. Only when you do can you
forward your faulty premises. Right now you are just cherry picking your
facts and mostly using quotes out of context, as usual. You need to quote
your so called "facts" correctly.

How funny your use of " bleeding ******" ? Is this your faux pas attempt at
being British? Worldly, perhaps? Yet, how apropos as you will see, or
perhaps as you already did?

Good to see you using the basic interrogatives as I recommended, but you
wouldn't have had to if you would have actually READ the links. At the
minimum, everything you ask is on the first pages as well as the who, what,
why,when, where and how the study was conducted. If in a hurry, just read
the executive summaries or abstracts as you usually do.

But this one time I gave you the entire study in PDF form, as well as the
second review and the American peer review so you can't pretend it is of no
significance. The complete protocol to include the fact that " relevant
subject experts and external bodies were alerted to the review process and
the availability of the review protocol." and that "A draft of the final
report was reviewed and approved by the independent review panel". So
either you can't read or you won't read? which is it? Your comprehension
will be another issue.

Personally, I believe it was too kind in that the protocol was
overly broad. One thing the organic comparisons do not do is give a base
soil analysis to include pH. and then explain what nutrients they have
available for use in their soil bank. There is a big difference in chicken
manure, cow manure, alfalfa etc. What inorganic materials did they use? in
what amounts, and how frequently. I do find fault with the control (or lack
of) in most of "experiments" and studies so far. Your "research", thus the
facts used to confirm your beliefs are mostly flawed and vastly over stated.
You have no standard protocol to make comparisons as this show.

I am sure you can see the disparity that can be. So lets see an equal side
by side where all things are the same as possible, then give realistic
explainations for the varients. Hasn't been done to date as Br Barrett
indicates.

I realize balanced scientific papers are not on the Fringe Organic Industry
Insider's recommended reading list, but this FSA study is going to cause
you considerable consternation if you continue to claim such superiority.
Go review the study design, search strategy, pub selection, etc. 50 years!

The concept of sustainable agriculture using organic materials is a good and
noble one, but it not the panacea you have so falsely claimed and badger
people about. You continue to preach apples, all the while showing oranges
as this latest study shows.

Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis ( again, the one in some of YOUR references) has said
many times there is no conclusive proof that organic is superior.
So you want to quit now and move on because you nor your fan club can
adequately address this one.

-- Again, your trademark BS political commentaries are snipped

WTF has this flame war got to do with growing marijuana?