Organic Confidential to Riccardo

[Dim Bulb]

https://www.yahoo.com/health/this-is...942216062.html

Of course, I get that there is no causal link between fewer pesticide residues in your urine and better health, but if given a choice, I'll go with fewer. I also get that this test is not very scientific due to low n, controls, lack of blinds, and environmental factors not considered, but if it is even directionally correct...

[Susquehanna Birder]

Thir reeks of junk science. The results appear to have been cherry picked, and there seems to be a suggestion that "organic" means no pesticides, which it doesn't.

[Riccardo]

I'd like to see other toxins analyzed

such as mycotoxins from molds. Just cherry picking a few pesticides the results are to be expected but a more holistic analysis is more relevant

[Loki]

Spank it into an organic container?

[Dim Bulb]

yes well

Thir reeks of junk science. The results appear to have been cherry picked, and there seems to be a suggestion that "organic" means no pesticides, which it doesn't.

No organophosphates are permitted. Soaps, bacteria, some insecticides derived from flowers, potassium carbonate are okay. They are indeed pesticides, but not what people commonly think of as pesticides.

http://gardening.about.com/od/garden...icPesticid.htm

The way I see it is, if there are fewer traces of pesticides in my kids, I'm okay with that, regardless of junk science or whatever else. Riccardo's point is a good one, what if there are higher levels of pathogens or something, which makes overall health profile a negative. That's sort of a scare tactic though, as the same FDA rules apply to organic as do to conventional.

[Susquehanna Birder]

...but a more holistic analysis is more relevant

Which is why it wasn't done. Designing the questions to get the answers you want. Faux science rawks.

[Dim Bulb]

the environmental factors involved

Which is why it wasn't done. Designing the questions to get the answers you want. Faux science rawks.

Will render any "overall health" study meaningless. Too many variables.

Again, my dim view is: Fewer pesticides in my kids = a good thing.

If all other risks (like the scary pathogens angle Riccardo suggests) are equally present and regulated by FDA, then what the heck, why not go for fewer pesticides. Unless you tell me that they taste good too.

[Susquehanna Birder]

I understand and applaud your desire to feed your family the best that you can. I'm certainly not going to tell anyone what to - or not to - eat. If it's just limiting pesticides, I get it. That said, the pseudoscientific crowd doesn't make it easy for me to accept, though.

For the most part, I feel that the "organic" movement is mostly feel-good bullshit, and I take a dim (heh) view when I see it being bantered about.

[Dim Bulb]

oh you did not

I understand and applaud your desire to feed your family the best that you can. I'm certainly not going to tell anyone what to - or not to - eat. If it's just limiting pesticides, I get it. That said, the pseudoscientific crowd doesn't make it easy for me to accept, though.

For the most part, I feel that the "organic" movement is mostly feel-good bullshit, and I take a dim (heh) view when I see it being bantered about.

dim me, did you?

[Riccardo]

I Wasn't thinking of pathogens

more along the lines of organics might have more molds on them (not pathogens) which could impart some mycotoxins that could be just as bad if not worse than pesticides.

[Dim Bulb]

Moldophobia?

more along the lines of organics might have more molds on them (not pathogens) which could impart some mycotoxins that could be just as bad if not worse than pesticides.

Man, there's a lot of stuff you can't eat.

[Susquehanna Birder]

Lots of fun stuff exists in "natural" fertilizer, too.

[Dim Bulb]

Bad news

Lots of fun stuff exists in "natural" fertilizer, too.

for all the fertilizer-eaters out there!