5 ms·

I have to admit, whenever I see something like this, my immediate response is: who paid for them to write this. I am reminded of the many talking heads in fina

I have to admit, whenever I see something like this, my immediate response is: who paid for them to write this. I am reminded of the many talking heads in finance prior to 2008 who assured us that our financial system providing more debt than ever to support home loans was good for the economy. I'm not saying it's impossible for organic to have downsides. It's not even impossible that those downsides might be substantial. I am saying it's impossible for me to trust an article that says so, given the way our newsmedia industry works. A good portion of our news is ghostwritten for them by industry, and this looks a lot like what I might pay for the ghostwriting of if I were, say, Monsanto. Is this true? I have no idea. But I am suspicious.

abtinf 9y ago
Do you apply the same standard to claims about "organic" products?
- Xeoncross 9y ago
  What are you talking about? Organic foods are an absence of herbicides, pesticides, and narcotics. It's not like you're choosing the lesser of two evils or something.
  - halleym 9y ago
    Organic foods are an absence of specific herbicides, pesticides and narcotics; not all of them categorically.
  - WalterSear 9y ago
    Just your assumption, unfortunately. > The pesticides that are allowed for organic food production are typically not manmade. They tend to have natural substances like soaps, lime sulfur and hydrogen peroxide as ingredients. Not all natural substances are allowed in organic agriculture; some chemicals like arsenic, strychnine and tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate) are prohibited. http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/organic.html http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/organic.html
    - Xeoncross 9y ago
      Um, there is no assumption here. I guess I could have clarified "Organic foods are an absence of many herbicides, pesticides, and narcotics." Non-organic simply has them all.
technotony 9y ago
A challenge is that with this debate (say organic vs GMO) both sides have a lot at stake financially and you can make this argument either way. How then should one decide what to trust and read?
- alexandercrohde 9y ago
  Well in such cases, I apply the precautionary principle and do the thing that is the least risk. In this case, it's minimizing unknown chemicals in my body.
- rossdavidh 9y ago
  I tend to go by: 1) which side has more money to spend? 2) which side is introducing more foods/chemicals/conditions which are more different from what my ancestors evolved for? Which is totally not a guarantee, I freely admit.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    Curiously, our ancestors evolved to eat cooked, genetically modified food. Modified by selection yes, but genetically different from anything that came before. The odd 'paleo' diet is nothing we're equipped to handle anymore. Nobody has eaten like that for 100,000 years, and we've moved on biologically?
- edraferi 9y ago
  Does “organic” necessarily mean non-GMO? Personally I think GMO is great but dislike massive use of fertilizer and pesticides. And really, that’s mostly for downstream effects. I want to encourage sustainable land use and reduced environmental harm. Fine with me if we need to hack some plants to enable that. I recognize that genetic modification is sometimes used to enable greater use of these chemicals (eg roundup ready grains).
- hootguy 9y ago
  How about taking the competing arguments at face value and evaluating them against each other? If qui bono is the only question you ask, you shut down a lot of your brain.
bogle 9y ago
Although that may be true of many articles it is possible to check the author's credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg His public record seems to me to suggest he really does hold these views.
gamache 9y ago
Ad hominem: the article author, Bjorn Lomborg, is a noted climate change skeptic[1] whose work has been declared "scientifically dishonest" by watchdogs in the past[2]. The money seems to come from his being an environmental edgelord. Private funding -> almost nonexistent foundation -> Lomborg's pocket[3]. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climat... [2] http://fivu.dk/en/publications/2004/annual-report-2003-the-danish-committees-on-scientific-dishonesty http://fivu.dk/en/publications/2004/annual-report-2003-the-d... [3] https://theconversation.com/still-no-consensus-for-bjorn-lomborg-the-climate-change-refugee-45423 https://theconversation.com/still-no-consensus-for-bjorn-lom...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

abtinf 9y ago

Do you apply the same standard to claims about "organic" products?

Xeoncross 9y ago
What are you talking about? Organic foods are an absence of herbicides, pesticides, and narcotics. It's not like you're choosing the lesser of two evils or something.
- halleym 9y ago
  Organic foods are an absence of specific herbicides, pesticides and narcotics; not all of them categorically.
- WalterSear 9y ago
  Just your assumption, unfortunately. > The pesticides that are allowed for organic food production are typically not manmade. They tend to have natural substances like soaps, lime sulfur and hydrogen peroxide as ingredients. Not all natural substances are allowed in organic agriculture; some chemicals like arsenic, strychnine and tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate) are prohibited. http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/organic.html http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/organic.html
  - Xeoncross 9y ago
    Um, there is no assumption here. I guess I could have clarified "Organic foods are an absence of many herbicides, pesticides, and narcotics." Non-organic simply has them all.

technotony 9y ago

A challenge is that with this debate (say organic vs GMO) both sides have a lot at stake financially and you can make this argument either way. How then should one decide what to trust and read?

alexandercrohde 9y ago
Well in such cases, I apply the precautionary principle and do the thing that is the least risk. In this case, it's minimizing unknown chemicals in my body.
rossdavidh 9y ago
I tend to go by: 1) which side has more money to spend? 2) which side is introducing more foods/chemicals/conditions which are more different from what my ancestors evolved for? Which is totally not a guarantee, I freely admit.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  Curiously, our ancestors evolved to eat cooked, genetically modified food. Modified by selection yes, but genetically different from anything that came before. The odd 'paleo' diet is nothing we're equipped to handle anymore. Nobody has eaten like that for 100,000 years, and we've moved on biologically?
edraferi 9y ago
Does “organic” necessarily mean non-GMO? Personally I think GMO is great but dislike massive use of fertilizer and pesticides. And really, that’s mostly for downstream effects. I want to encourage sustainable land use and reduced environmental harm. Fine with me if we need to hack some plants to enable that. I recognize that genetic modification is sometimes used to enable greater use of these chemicals (eg roundup ready grains).
hootguy 9y ago
How about taking the competing arguments at face value and evaluating them against each other? If qui bono is the only question you ask, you shut down a lot of your brain.

bogle 9y ago

Although that may be true of many articles it is possible to check the author's credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg His public record seems to me to suggest he really does hold these views.

gamache 9y ago

Ad hominem: the article author, Bjorn Lomborg, is a noted climate change skeptic[1] whose work has been declared "scientifically dishonest" by watchdogs in the past[2]. The money seems to come from his being an environmental edgelord. Private funding -> almost nonexistent foundation -> Lomborg's pocket[3]. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climat... [2] http://fivu.dk/en/publications/2004/annual-report-2003-the-danish-committees-on-scientific-dishonesty http://fivu.dk/en/publications/2004/annual-report-2003-the-d... [3] https://theconversation.com/still-no-consensus-for-bjorn-lomborg-the-climate-change-refugee-45423 https://theconversation.com/still-no-consensus-for-bjorn-lom...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]