Is the organic food movement the most anti-science social movement out there?

[C0ckney]

but seriously, pay up.

[Drake Tungsten]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[C0ckney]

yeah, i'm sure...

from the charity thread (it's on page 2)

I'll bet I can go to my grocery store in NYC and buy produce from Chile than has a lower carbon footprint than your local produce trucked in from the English countryside.

[Drake Tungsten]

You want money for that?

Jesus, you're dumber than I thought, which is saying something...

[C0ckney]

you're the one who said 'i'll bet you...'

[giblets]

Normally when people make an actual bet they specify a certain amount.

[Drake Tungsten]

you're the one who said 'i'll bet you...'

Great. Now show where we agreed to terms and where you actually proved your case to an extent sufficient to have won our non-existent bet, you ******.

[C0ckney]

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Tough call. Of all the so called science that finds a NYT seal of approval the items of a leftist bent share the same themes. Anti-mass prroduction and therefor can predictably be seen as stupid for the reasons you cite.

[Kidlicious]

Economics is the real most anti-science social movement.

As far as the claim that pesticides are actually good for you, you can believe that if you like. Just because there's no proof of something doesn't mean it's true. Pesticides are responsible for all the frogs dying, what makes you think that we aren't next? I'm not going to fill my body with something that God never intended me to eat.

[Kidlicious]

Also, it's obvious that if whole foods taste better then they are better for you.

"In April 2009, results from Quality Low Input Food (QLIF), a 5-year integrated study funded by the European Commission,[53] confirmed that "the quality of crops and livestock products from organic and conventional farming systems differs considerably."[54] Specifically, results from a QLIF project studying the effects of organic and low-input farming on crop and livestock nutritional quality "showed that organic food production methods resulted in: (a) higher levels of nutritionally desirable compounds (e.g., vitamins/antioxidants and poly-unsaturated fatty acids such as omega-3 and CLA); (b) lower levels of nutritionally undesirable compounds such as heavy metals, mycotoxins, pesticide residues and glyco-alkaloids in a range of crops and/or milk; (c) a lower risk of faecal Salmonella shedding in pigs."[55] The QLIF study also concludes that "further and more detailed studies are required to provide proof for positive health impacts of organic diets on human and animal health."[56] Alternatively, according to the UK's Food Standards Agency, "Consumers may choose to buy organic fruit, vegetables and meat because they believe them to be more nutritious than other food. However, the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view."[57] A 12-month systematic review commissioned by the FSA in 2009 and conducted at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine based on 50 year's worth of collected evidence concluded that "there is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content."[58] Other studies have found no proof that organic food offers greater nutritional values, more consumer safety or any distinguishable difference in taste.[59][60][61][62]

Regarding taste, a 2001 study concluded that organic apples were sweeter by blind taste test. Firmness of the apples was also rated higher than those grown conventionally.[63] Limited use of food preservatives may cause faster spoilage of organic foods. Such foods in the stores, on the other hand, are guaranteed of not having been stored for extended amounts of time, still being high in decaying nutrients that food preservatives fail to preserve. Organic food may also potentially have higher amounts of natural biotoxins, like solanine in potatoes[64], as to compensate for the lack of externally applied fungicides and herbicides etc. However, in current studies, there have been no indications of difference in amounts of natural biotoxins between organic and conventional foods.[64]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic...alue_and_taste

[Elok]

If things that "taste better" are good for you, does that mean if I favor McDonald's food it must be exactly what my body needs?

[Kidlicious]

"whole foods"

[Elok]

No, your argument was "it's obvious that if [x] tastes better then they are better for you." It reads as "good taste = good nutrition."

[Kidlicious]

No, your argument was "it's obvious that if [x] tastes better then they are better for you." It reads as "good taste = good nutrition."

If that were my argument then I would have saved time and just typed [x].