Re: Organic Food Not Nutritionally Better Than Conventionally-pr understood - I think we're dealing with different definitions of "woo woo". The usage I'm familiar with (and now I think about it, I've not heard it used in any other way) is where it denotes an idea which has been disproven, but, for whatever reason is still cherished by some people. hence woowoo covers things like astrology and homeopathy
Re: Organic Food Not Nutritionally Better Than Conventionally-pr Sorry Daz but are you saying that astrology and homeopathy have been disproven? When did this happen? (edit spelling) Chromatography (used to assess quality) has been used extensively and is not really considered Woo Woo (edit to stay on topic)
Re: Organic Food Not Nutritionally Better Than Conventionally-pr Science is too busy proving stuff that is plausible to work on this stuff. Or put another way - you have to convince people to fund it, and most of it isn't reasonable. Most scientists recognise "woo woo" when they see it. I use a simple test: If the idea has, at its core, a gross misunderstanding of science concepts, then its probably woo woo. For example: anything having to do with magnets, crystals, vortices or energy. The new agers and non-scientists basically take impressive things discovered by science and twist them around to be 'magic'. That's not to say the world isn't full of wonder, but they assign properties to phenomenon that just aren't there. Crystals don't have power, sorry
Re: Organic Food Not Nutritionally Better Than Conventionally-pr astrology: ref. https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 419a0.html homeopathy: i'm not aware of any properly conducted experiment that shows that diluting a substance past the point where any of it is left has an effect better than placebo.
Re: Organic Food Not Nutritionally Better Than Conventionally-pr perhaps there was a time when I could use my intuition to say this, without ever being contradicted: it's obvious that if you drop a feather and a cannon ball from a great height that the cannon ball will fall faster - intuition rocks QED what value, then, does one place on not thinking that you're wrong?
Re: Organic Food Not Nutritionally Better Than Conventionally-pr yes so science follows money ,I think this is a vital fundamental flaw in which scientists are encumbered to capitalism. Again monetary? yes many people do that which confounds the core meaning (if there is one). I obviously give a different definition to woo woo than most.I think of it as a store of unknown to be explored at a latter time when we have accomplished a better related understanding.such understanding is severely limited if those who are capable are already owned. Anything to do with? sounds like a blanket statement to justify ignorance. So everyone except scientists twist the truth. You paint with a very wide brush gbell,you must have a huge canvass lol.I would again propose capitalists as the twisters yes but are the scientists(full of wonder)I think they should be if they are to continue to be effective. the power of refraction of light, the power of beauty ,the placebo effect can all be powerful in their own right. as a summary of my own beliefs,I believe that all too often good people follow paths set by ignorant people(capitalists) who are just doing business as usual as taught by their forefathers,this has not bade well for the environment,the under privileged or human spiritual and evoloutional development,this is made possible by justifying an end result rather than working holistically,which to me means leaving a crack for the light to shine in.Be careful what you disclude it becomes you.
Re: Organic Food Not Nutritionally Better Than Conventionally-pr This does not disprove it though. I have seen it work on cattle and other animals - given disguised in their food - they could not have attributed the results to any placebo effect. Let me quote a little from Bill Mollison on Woo-Woo from "Travels in Dreams" I think we know these people and we do a dis service to natural systems and nature if we start to generalize and put thinks we do not understand into this "category" It would be a shame if we were to dismiss wondrous thing from nature just because a scientist (are they ever biased or self serving?) has not proven it yet.
Re: Organic Food Not Nutritionally Better Than Conventionally-pr Many people would consider me to be a 'new-ager' but I am also a scientist. I don't think the two need to be mutually exclusive. But then again I guess it depends on how you wish to define new-ager and scientist. It is interesting that the placebo effect is often thought of as just an insignificant thing that happens; as though it is a 'mere' placebo - after all it is "just mind-over-matter" isn't it?. But doesn't the fact that placebo is such an ever present effect tell us that it is actually far more important than just a mere chance effect? To me the fact that there is such a thing as mind-over-matter at all is something more mind-blowing, with far greater potential and ramifications than many of the things that science has 'proven' or dis-proven. What if the placebo effect is the most important aspect of all of these things? What if there is far far more to mind-over-matter than most of us have dared to consider? What if it is all about the way you think, the way you interact with the universe, that creates the very universe you see? I personally have had too many experiences of synchronicity and the like to throw the placebo out with the broken test-tubes. Here is something else I like to consider. Lets assume there is no such things as fairies at the bottom of the garden. If we take that stance most people will say we are 'right', because there is no proof of their existence. But lets say we as individuals just decide to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, just because it's nice to think they are there, life is just that little bit shinier, and there is no harm done. I'd rather be wrong in a happy world than right in a spiritless one. Isn't it just about the intent of 'woo-woo'. What is the difference if someone aims to deceive us with woo-woo or someone tries to deceive us with science? If someone heals me with woo-woo and I am healed, isn't the important thing that I am healed? There is room for the new-age and even for fantasy in my life, and I feel as though it is a richer life for it.
It isn't about nutrients! Your gizmo does not measure life force (man), It does not measure spirit, It does not measure symbiotics undiscovered........... in fact ...all it measures is chemical structure,,,,,,,,or some similar exclusive reductionist crappo. it is a mataphor for letting accountants measure you, and pass judgement on your productivity. it is a metaphor for all the similar reductionist science that messes with the group think. Here is the good oil: organics, slow food, real food, non industrial food ----------------it is way better for you--------------nothing to do with 'nutrition' and all to do with stuff we can't yet measure, unless it is by 'proof of the pudding'. My instincts tell me 'life force'...........but I don't know what it is....which is cool, because there are lots of things I don't know about how it works, yet observe the workings of. regards, Kimbo
Nutritional quality and safety of organic food. A review Denis LAIRON* INRA, I just thought I'd post this here for reference as I came across this today. This is a review of the French studies supporting the greater nutritional and safety qualities of organically produced foods.
Although some previous reviews have concluded that organic food is superior in nutritional content compared to conventionally produced food, nobody has yet done a systematic review of the literature, said a press statement from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
100% of the test subjects in an independent study at our place say that home grown food tastes better than any sort of stuff we can buy. Now that is science
has anyone done a systematic review of who funds systematic reviews or systematic smear campaigns to discredit organics.
The conventionally grown apple costs less and is a proven family favorite. But the organic apple has a label that says "USDA Organic." Does that mean it's better? Safer? More nutritious? Several differences between organic and nonorganic foods exist.
My opinion (although a little off the original topic) is that... Things bought in supermarkets are always worse. Things bought in a quality, locally owned, greengrocers are often better (especially local stuff) Home grown, chemical free is always better. The organic vs conventional argument is kind of a furphy when multinationals are involved, and when the produce has been stored artificially for any length of time. To me the 'nutritionally better' discussion is really a lower level discussion than the 'environmental and sustainability' discussion
Something else you may not be aware of... In Australia any produce, organic or not is sprayed if it leaves one state for another. Not sure what the name of the spray is but I think its (something) bromide. My eldest son works in the transport sector over there and has been talking with the drivers.
I'll ask him for specifics and let you know what he says. Cant see how something like that can be sort of true tho.(lol)
Might be a good idea to check out your food health and safety regs, apparently all food stuffs have to be treated whether they are organic or not in order to make sure there are no noxious pests in them.....sorry. But dont take my word on it check it out yourself, you should be able to access any item of law through your local library.I suppose it would be quicker to check it out on the net tho.
We have 2 categories of crap here: Crap science and crap journalism... Monsanto & friends will continue to promote crap science as long as journalists lack the intellectual honesty to use basic critical thinking skills taught in journalism 101 and promptly forgotten. The title "Organic Food Not Nutritionally Better Than Conventionally" is misleading and very unscientific. How do you prove something in the negative? Can we say there is no god, because science hasn't been able to prove it? Or better yet, there is no person named Aguinaldo Kintaro Picadilly because we can't find him on Facebook? A more accurate title might be, "Review of studies fails to find a nutritional advantage in organics". Critical thinking has been all but lost in the news media, so best to bring along your own thinking cap.
