Well no one farms like it's the 1980's anymore so...
They are more recent actually, which gives the organic farmer more leeway as organic practices have improved.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Rodale study covers a thirty year field trial. Your references don't compare even remotely with the depth and breadth of the Rodale thirty year trial and study.
The Rodale study is a thirty year side by side trial. The links you site don't hold a candle to the depth and breadth of the Rodale studies and trials.
Take some time to review it in depth: rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FSTbooklet.pdf
Mybe I'm missing something, but the 30 year trial was conventional vs organic, not GMO nescarily specificly vs organic, and in many ways fails to show what it claims because conventional did better in many areas, in amount of nitrogen needed, amount of offtime that is required for certain foods and so on.
Neither do you understand much about agriculture. More nitrogen being needed is bad, not good.
Sorry guys - you're out of date. The evidence is in, and it is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Organic outproduces toxic/conventional/GMO agriculture, and it produces food with no pesticide residue, and it does all that while helping to reduce carbon dioxide emissions associated associated with global warming and volatile organic compounds associated with smog.
I've posted the scientific evidence from years of trials.
So, what's your beef dudes? Unless, of course, you're paid posters for toxic agriculture. Then your posts make perfect sense.
Oh yeah - and organic agriculture, unlike GMO's, does NOT shrink testicles and brains.
Yes. You're missing something.
GMO's are not allowed in organic agriculture.
Neither do you understand much about agriculture. More nitrogen being needed is bad, not good. Nitrogen costs money to buy and apply, and it runs off and pollutes streams, lakes, rivers, and especially the Gulf of Mexico.
yes, and organic farms use far more nitrogen then conventional.
And that disqualifies the test itself. A) GMO crops have improved over the last 30 years, so using ones from 30 years ago with modern will tend to hide any benefits currently. B) Since it's just that they MAY be GMO and may not also disqualifies, if only 10% of the conventional farms use GMO then any benefits again is hidden.
This test has been taken apart and criticized for bad metholodology and so on, and considering it's by a biased group, not a independant group I would take the results with a grain of salt.
Also given just how much missinformation and lies there is with organic farming, and unsupported claims I be even less inclined to trust. These are the same guys that sell the lie of organics using either no or less pesticides, when they use far more, at far more toxic levels.
Sorry guys - you're out of date. The evidence is in, and it is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Organic outproduces toxic/conventional/GMO agriculture, and it produces food with no pesticide residue, and it does all that while helping to reduce carbon dioxide emissions associated associated with global warming and volatile organic compounds associated with smog.
I've posted the scientific evidence from years of trials.
So, what's your beef dudes? Unless, of course, you're paid posters for toxic agriculture. Then your posts make perfect sense.
Oh yeah - and organic agriculture, unlike GMO's, does NOT shrink testicles and brains.
A panel of experts, the Royal Society and food-safety scientists in regulatory agencies around the world, all have concluded that the study does not demonstrate that the GM potatoes were unsafe in any way.
Experts say no scientific conclusion can be made from the work. Two separate expert panels reviewed this research and concluded that both the experimental design and conduct of the experiments were fatally flawed, and that no scientific conclusion should be drawn from the work
No differences were seen between the groups of animals. Experts who reviewed the data stated that there were no meaningful differences between control and experimental groups, that the same cellular differences could be seen in all groupsGM-fed or notand that too few animals were used to allow statistical significance to be achieved
Flawed study design and improper diets doomed the study to failure. The diets were protein-deficient and different groups of rats received different diets. Some rats were fed raw potatoes raw potatoes are toxic to rats and might cause disturbances to gastrointestinal cells
So, what's your beef dudes? Unless, of course, you're paid posters for toxic agriculture. Then your posts make perfect sense.
Scientific ignorance is really beginning to scare me.
Organic, all natural, anti-GMO is the new religious fanaticism. It is based on the effectiveness of preaching, not reason, not evidence. Kids and the elderly are dying because people won't vaccinate.
We are entering the true Dark Ages.
smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?