Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Civilization2

(649 posts)
16. Yup you nailed it! The argument is flawed; Organic is BETTER!
Sun May 26, 2013, 08:20 AM
May 2013

I have heard this line of BS parroted in the media,. I immediately said the same thing "who ever made this claim of being more nutritious?" It is a clear Straw Man argument designed to confuse simple people and delude the real issues. Monsanto and the petro-chem corporate farming industry is destroying land water and air, poisoning people and killing off the bees.

Organic food is better for you, since it contains much less poison, and is not been genetically modified so corporations can make claims of ownership over the seeds. The idea of living things being intellectual property is ridiculous. GMOs and pesticides are corporate tools of profit and control and produce inferior and poisoned foods.

Organic food is better for us because when we eat it you are supporting the building up of the soil in sustainable ways, not the killing of the soil, and petroleum grown mono-crops the corporations use to take sort-term profits, leaving a scorched dead earth when they are gone. Small diverse organic farms are safer and more resistant to climate change, and pests/diseases. Chemically maintained mono-crops are corporate ideology at its worst, they produce lots of inferior food in the sort term for quick profits, and create a poisoned and degenerated land for the long term. short term gain for profit, while stealing from the future.

Organic food tastes better.

it is also about ingesting KT2000 May 2013 #1
It's also about building and maintaining the soil Warpy May 2013 #2
Still the yields are about 25% lower than conventional farming Quixote1818 May 2013 #3
The stanford study you quote is biased considering STANFORD RECIEVES MONSANTO FUNDING obama4socialism May 2013 #6
I have yet to see a peer reviewed study Quixote1818 May 2013 #9
Why repeat what has been proven to be wrong? If biased studies make it through the peer review facismrising May 2013 #12
While most public attention sulphurdunn May 2013 #32
I garden organically, and I have more and tastier produce than my neighbors who use miracle grow Viva_La_Revolution May 2013 #20
There are over 120 peer reviewed studies here... Veilex May 2013 #22
That's true but quick review says they don't all suggest Progressive dog May 2013 #26
Science is rarely black and white. Phenols have been extolled for their virtues, but some would argue Veilex May 2013 #33
science is usually tending toward black and white, that's the point Progressive dog May 2013 #37
This message was self-deleted by its author Veilex May 2013 #38
Your right, in that science does try to define everything it can (The black and white analogy)... Veilex May 2013 #39
Fact is, since farmers have moved away from organic methods Progressive dog May 2013 #40
"I agree that there is very little scientific proof of nutrients or yield in either direction"... Veilex May 2013 #41
So where's the beef, it's not in your 120 studies Progressive dog May 2013 #42
Um, not quite Warpy May 2013 #23
She is lying! No estrogenic pesticides plus organic food is HIGHER IN IMPORTANT NUTRIENTS facismrising May 2013 #4
That study is bogus. Please post something from a science journal next time Quixote1818 May 2013 #7
Stanford MONSANTO funded study gets in Journal, OTHERS THAT SHOW ORGANIC MORE NUTRIENT DENSE facismrising May 2013 #8
I can't believe we even pay attention to the so called "mainstream" reporting anymore. They obama4socialism May 2013 #10
You mean pro-organic organizations tied the study to Monsanto Quixote1818 May 2013 #11
You like subjective research, the rest of us don't! facismrising May 2013 #13
This message was self-deleted by its author Veilex May 2013 #35
your assertions about cattle feed have caused me to conclude you have no credibility for this topic Kali May 2013 #24
organic is non-GMO. Cobalt Violet May 2013 #5
That isn't a winning argument. Crow73 May 2013 #30
This is classic Straw Man* crapola Berlum May 2013 #14
Yup you nailed it! The argument is flawed; Organic is BETTER! Civilization2 May 2013 #16
And yet they leave out important aspects of the Cargill funded study. fasttense May 2013 #15
Her 4 mythical myths destroyed KurtNYC May 2013 #17
yeah - that "pestilized" made me go Kali May 2013 #25
This is obviously not a clear cut black and white issue Snake Plissken May 2013 #18
organic is better fpasko May 2013 #19
Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin May 2013 #21
That Sounds's Interesting. Any Proof of Organic-only at Monsanto HQ. dballance May 2013 #27
Suspicious timing, right after Monsanto March felix_numinous May 2013 #28
Thanks, but Crow73 May 2013 #29
That made a lot of sense Progressive dog May 2013 #31
The presentation is glib and slick..... DeSwiss May 2013 #34
very interesting discussion - thanks to all CHOCOLATMIMOSA May 2013 #36
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»4 Myths about Organic Foo...»Reply #16