9 ms·

> according to the Environmental Working Group It's unfortunate that they are giving credence to EWG as it damages the credibility of the article. EWG amounts

by coin 8y ago

> according to the Environmental Working Group It's unfortunate that they are giving credence to EWG as it damages the credibility of the article. EWG amounts to an anti-science pro-organic industry group that uses pseudoscience to push their agenda. https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/25/dear-ewg-why-real-scientists-think-poorly-you-11323 https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/25/dear-ewg-why-real-scien...

wpietri 8y ago
The ACSH, whose criticism you cite, is not what I'd call a neutral organization. They're generally pro-industry, with murky funding sources. Leaked documents from 2012 reveal a lot of industry money. More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_an...
- coin 8y ago
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/07/12/would-you-rather-buy-organic-or-poison-your-family-ewg-wants-you-to-pick-one/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/07/12/would... Granted this is just an opinion. EWG attacks conventional pesticides while ignoring organic practices (see their dirty dozen list). They cite the fraud scientist Seralini when attacking GMOs. Looking at them it's pretty clear they are an organic industry front group.
  - asdfg420 8y ago
    Not my pet issue but I find your credulity a little suss. I'm not initiated but literally 2 minutes of digging turned up this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-o... Imagine an extremely powerful company launching a media campaign to discredit research that threatens its profits. :eyeroll:
  - ajsdfhjka12 8y ago
    I replied to this yesterday and my comment was deleted? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-o... If your concern is over 'front groups' ie unspoken influence, then it's amazing you would use specifically Forbes as source.
spraak 8y ago
Being anti-organic seems so weird to me. What is the reason?
- adrianN 8y ago
  I'm not anti-organic, but there are a couple of good arguments against organic food. First the end product is pretty much identical nutrition-wise. Second, organic produce requires more land, so it's unclear whether that scales to feed all people. And third, many "organic" pesticides are not shown to be better for the environment than the non-organic alternatives. Personally I think we could achieve more by picking up some ideas from organic farming (e.g. more diversity to combat pests, better preservation of the soil) without demonizing all advances in agriculture like improved fertilizers or GMOs.
  - Twirrim 8y ago
    A third point against "organic" is that with foreign imports it only means the seller told the import company it was "organic". So foreign food producers just say their stuff is "organically grown", even if it was smothered in pesticides, pumped full of steroids etc, because then they get to claim a premium too. Lack of consistent standards, or authority to enforce mean it's essentially a rubber stamp.
    - coin 8y ago
      Organic uses pesticides
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > So foreign food producers just say their stuff is "organically grown", even if it was smothered in pesticides Organically grown products are usually smothered in pesticides, since “organic” doesn't prohibit pesticides, just the more targeted and effective ones, forcing quantity to make up for quality.
    - dsfdsfsd423423 8y ago
      They are now growing potatoes in the Egyptian desert, to fill demand for organic potatoes in Germany. Organic is not automatically better for the environment.
mherdeg 8y ago
Yeah it's weird. I know that I shouldn't distrust everything a source says just because one thing they publish uses misleading data to arrive at a funny conclusion. And yet. This author's analysis of the EWG "Dirty Dozen" pesticide-residue-on-produce report -- https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2018/04/10/the-inconvenient-truth-about-the-environmental-working-groups-dirty-dozen-list/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2018/04/10/the-inc... -- made me wonder about this source. This author (Steven Savage) claims that: (1) there is evidence that non-organic produce contains more residue of the kind of pesticides which are only used on non-organic produce and not used on organic produce; (2) there is no evidence that the levels of pesticide residue found on non-organic produce are toxic to humans; (3) there is no measurement of the levels of residue of the kinds of pesticides used on organic produce on any produce; (4) there is no evidence that the kinds of pesticides used on organic produce are non-toxic to humans. This author additionally claims that (5) the EWG report reports fact 1, ignores facts 2, 3, and 4, and uses this combination of facts which he says are misleading in order to assert that certain kinds of produce are more toxic to humans in their non-organic form vs. their organic form. His claims seem to agree with the literature to the extent that I'm able to understand it. As far as I can tell, every year EWG puts out a report which makes this assertion, every year it gets this criticism, and every year their report does not addres this criticism. Having read this makes me somewhat more skeptical of the EWG's coverage of all topics, not just pesticide residue on produce but also active ingredients in sunscreen. With all that being said, I currently mostly use sunscreen whose only active ingredient is zinc oxide, which is also the active ingredient in the diaper cream I use on our baby. I don't have any evidence that this is better or worse than using the stuff that kills the coral reefs. It's just convenient.

by coin 8y ago

wpietri 8y ago

The ACSH, whose criticism you cite, is not what I'd call a neutral organization. They're generally pro-industry, with murky funding sources. Leaked documents from 2012 reveal a lot of industry money. More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_an...

coin 8y ago
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/07/12/would-you-rather-buy-organic-or-poison-your-family-ewg-wants-you-to-pick-one/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/07/12/would... Granted this is just an opinion. EWG attacks conventional pesticides while ignoring organic practices (see their dirty dozen list). They cite the fraud scientist Seralini when attacking GMOs. Looking at them it's pretty clear they are an organic industry front group.
- asdfg420 8y ago
  Not my pet issue but I find your credulity a little suss. I'm not initiated but literally 2 minutes of digging turned up this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-o... Imagine an extremely powerful company launching a media campaign to discredit research that threatens its profits. :eyeroll:
- ajsdfhjka12 8y ago
  I replied to this yesterday and my comment was deleted? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-o... If your concern is over 'front groups' ie unspoken influence, then it's amazing you would use specifically Forbes as source.

spraak 8y ago

Being anti-organic seems so weird to me. What is the reason?

adrianN 8y ago
I'm not anti-organic, but there are a couple of good arguments against organic food. First the end product is pretty much identical nutrition-wise. Second, organic produce requires more land, so it's unclear whether that scales to feed all people. And third, many "organic" pesticides are not shown to be better for the environment than the non-organic alternatives. Personally I think we could achieve more by picking up some ideas from organic farming (e.g. more diversity to combat pests, better preservation of the soil) without demonizing all advances in agriculture like improved fertilizers or GMOs.
- Twirrim 8y ago
  A third point against "organic" is that with foreign imports it only means the seller told the import company it was "organic". So foreign food producers just say their stuff is "organically grown", even if it was smothered in pesticides, pumped full of steroids etc, because then they get to claim a premium too. Lack of consistent standards, or authority to enforce mean it's essentially a rubber stamp.
  - coin 8y ago
    Organic uses pesticides
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > So foreign food producers just say their stuff is "organically grown", even if it was smothered in pesticides Organically grown products are usually smothered in pesticides, since “organic” doesn't prohibit pesticides, just the more targeted and effective ones, forcing quantity to make up for quality.
  - dsfdsfsd423423 8y ago
    They are now growing potatoes in the Egyptian desert, to fill demand for organic potatoes in Germany. Organic is not automatically better for the environment.

mherdeg 8y ago

Yeah it's weird. I know that I shouldn't distrust everything a source says just because one thing they publish uses misleading data to arrive at a funny conclusion. And yet. This author's analysis of the EWG "Dirty Dozen" pesticide-residue-on-produce report -- https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2018/04/10/the-inconvenient-truth-about-the-environmental-working-groups-dirty-dozen-list/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2018/04/10/the-inc... -- made me wonder about this source. This author (Steven Savage) claims that: (1) there is evidence that non-organic produce contains more residue of the kind of pesticides which are only used on non-organic produce and not used on organic produce; (2) there is no evidence that the levels of pesticide residue found on non-organic produce are toxic to humans; (3) there is no measurement of the levels of residue of the kinds of pesticides used on organic produce on any produce; (4) there is no evidence that the kinds of pesticides used on organic produce are non-toxic to humans. This author additionally claims that (5) the EWG report reports fact 1, ignores facts 2, 3, and 4, and uses this combination of facts which he says are misleading in order to assert that certain kinds of produce are more toxic to humans in their non-organic form vs. their organic form. His claims seem to agree with the literature to the extent that I'm able to understand it. As far as I can tell, every year EWG puts out a report which makes this assertion, every year it gets this criticism, and every year their report does not addres this criticism. Having read this makes me somewhat more skeptical of the EWG's coverage of all topics, not just pesticide residue on produce but also active ingredients in sunscreen. With all that being said, I currently mostly use sunscreen whose only active ingredient is zinc oxide, which is also the active ingredient in the diaper cream I use on our baby. I don't have any evidence that this is better or worse than using the stuff that kills the coral reefs. It's just convenient.