Thanks, but (Reply #29) - Democratic Underground

In the discussion thread: 4 Myths about Organic Foods / Healthy Food Secrets [View all]

Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 03:13 PM

Crow73 (257 posts)

29. Thanks, but

you can keep the round-up.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

42 replies	Author	Time	Post
4 Myths about Organic Foods / Healthy Food Secrets [View all]	Quixote1818	May 2013	OP
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

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.