Organic Food Vs. Conventional: The Showdown [Pic]

Submitted by: patchgrabber 5 years ago in

An oldie but a goodie, and it"s been around facebook lately. If you like falsified studies, that is.
There are 39 comments:
Male 3,061
Whatever hippies
0
Reply
Female 7,874
Good- glad someone has already corrected this, I get fed up with keep saying that organic is not necessarily better and that misqoute never helps!
0
Reply
Male 26
Stop messing up the internets with your facts
0
Reply
Male 25,416
to much information for my internet mind
0
Reply
Male 621
Here`s the link that jendrian tried to post earlier in unbroken form:

Rutgers.edu - Misquotes in "Variation in Mineral Composition of Vegetables"

Quote: "A study conducted at Rutgers University (Bear et al., 1948) is frequently misquoted as evidence supporting the position that organically grown vegetables are significantly superior in minerals and trace elements to conventionally grown vegetables. In reviewing the original publication, one can clearly see that this was not the intention of the study nor does it give support to this premise."
0
Reply
Male 5,811
The original study was actually comparing mineral absorption values in different types of soils, but someone altered the table to be `organic` vs. `conventional` instead of `highest` and `lowest`. I posted it anyway because like I said in the description that it`s been circulating around again and I can`t stand it. Here`s the Table from the original study.
0
Reply
Male 14,866
Where`s the column for E.Coli?
0
Reply
Male 835
Made of people.
0
Reply
Male 2,424
READING? pass
0
Reply
Male 6,227
OK, that`s it. If I ever have a daughter, I`m going to insist that she name her teddy bear "Firman Edward Bear." That is too cute. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 2,841
Organic means that it might kill you.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
OMG. There really IS (or was) a Fir E. Bear. Link here.
0
Reply
Male 1,249
All the food is poison
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]about 1/3 of any crop is lost each year due to conditions (live or enviotmental) and that is about the same amount of crop that was lost before the use of chemicals.

also, chemicals destroy the soil and make it unusable and so does mono-cropping.[/quote]

Source or GTFO.
0
Reply
Male 663
What`s a snap bean?
0
Reply
Male 61
I`ve seen worse convenient names. Sometimes parents seem to hate their kids.
0
Reply
Male 61
@TrustusJones:
It`s comparing the mineral levels in unit weights of veg grown in too differently treated soils, one treated organically, one not.

This is the problem. It doesn`t specify the make-up of either soil. All organic/conventional soils are not equivalent. Especially if they are too differently treated.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
this just in... agricultural scientists at the Fir E. Squirrel Laboratory are working feverishly to confirm the findings...
0
Reply
Male 1,625
obviously its a fake, the guy who conducted the research is named Fir E Bear (Furry Bear)
0
Reply
Male 303
@TrustusJones:
It`s comparing the mineral levels in unit weights of veg grown in too differently treated soils, one treated organically, one not.
0
Reply
Male 61
It looks to me like the table is comparing soil nutrients. It says nothing about the soil ingredients (milliequivalents?) or yields. Organic soil contains organic fertilizers (worm castings, manure...). Conventional soil(?) would contain chemical fertilizers like nitrates and phosphates. It all depends on the mix.
0
Reply
Male 1,586
That`s why I like GMOs. They can make them healthier than organic.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
Funny, Rutgers University doesn`t seem to support this table

>[url]http://njaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/bearr...
0
Reply
Male 321
I brought Organic grapes once. There were dead spiders in them.
0
Reply
Male 901
"Organic agriculture is unsustainable. All you greenies should be campaigning against it! "

STFU and go read The Omnivore`s Dilemna before talking again.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
We knew this already, right?
0
Reply
Male 2,345
burbclaver

pray little simpleton that civilized society never collapses because you are the type of moron Darwin spoke of when he stated that the weak do not survive.
0
Reply
Male 2,345
randomxnp

there is no evidene of that at all and it is actually the other way round.

about 1/3 of any crop is lost each year due to conditions (live or enviotmental) and that is about the same amount of crop that was lost before the use of chemicals.

also, chemicals destroy the soil and make it unusable and so does mono-cropping.

I do like though how you know nothing about this issue but feel that someone your opinion is right.
0
Reply
Male 257
"organic" is more about what`s not in it and about what`s not involved in its production.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Organic agriculture is unsustainable. All you greenies should be campaigning against it!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Better than starving to death.
0
Reply
Male 626
Even if this was real, organic farming produces less food, and in a world with 1 billion starving people, I think it would be better to eat a little unhealthy to save thousands of starving children.
0
Reply
Male 1
This study has been misquoted often. Food is food. Science is complicated ! Go to school!
www.soilandhealth.org/ 06clipfile/RCE/rceALL.html
0
Reply
Male 3,894
This only makes me mad.
0
Reply
Male 38,400
That`s mind-blowingly fake! I know very little about nutrition, but I know fakery when I see it. Look at the tomato comparison!!! O_o
0
Reply
Male 678
I got angry until I saw the "falsified studies" thing in the description. I was ready to post paragraphs explaining how wrong this is.
0
Reply
Male 658
You know its wrong but post it anyways? What is wrong with you?
0
Reply
Male 878
Which is better, the high numbers or the low numbers? I`m not a frigging chemist so I don`t know what this means. I want vegetables in my vegetables, not minerals :)
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Link: Organic Food Vs. Conventional: The Showdown [Pic] [Rate Link] - An oldie but a goodie, and it`s been around facebook lately. If you like falsified studies, that is.
0
Reply