More BBC propaganda!

[D.P.]

Sure, short-term, but long term there is clear benefits then having chemical soaked foods.

If these benefits were clear then there would be scientific support - the news report you just posted clearly states that there is not enough evidence to verfiy those claims.

If you think you have some kind of amazing evidence then why don't you quit your job and start a PhD in the field to prove to the scientific community that they are wrong.

Quite clearly, you are wrong.. The health and safety of food and effects of chemicals used in the production of food is very carefully scrutinized.If there was any evidence that something wasn't safe then it wouldn't be allowed to be sold for human consumpption.

 

[oli collett]

The sale of industrial/ gm food grown in has been dropping in this country, organic food tends to be more smaller farms that have no link to the coporate world. this government have been pushing GM food with the backing of large coporations, All governemt regulation bodies are a joke, and are really there to help coporation rather than its citizens.

Yep, let's just ignore the facts, and go with a conspiracy!

 

[D.P.]

Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis.

Read my bottom/last quote on the OP:

"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences."

So what. This is 100% standard procedure. You do not include scientific papers that have a flawed scientific methodology. If some bio-organic hiippy chick does some backyard study and shows how much healther the apples she urinated on are then this has to be discarded from the list of case studies unless there is sufficient evidence that the scientific methodology was properly applied.

 

[NeilF]

Exactly, there spreading it.

They're a sodding news agency...

LOL! Classic!

 

[dbmzk1]

I've never believed that organic food is significantly better for you, but i've known for years that it's better for the environment. In fact, i don't think i've ever had anyone say to me organic food is better for you.

But, as has been said several times already in this thread, that is not true. Many of the alternatives they use on crops to product organic foods are known to be more toxic than their non-organic counterparts.

 

[aa6972]

It would be nice if all fruit &veg is Organic, even if has no health benefit, it would be better for the environment. but the problem is GM food is important because it help feeds a growing population. I remember doing a essay in school on this, if China dont have GM, most of their population will stave.

As for BBC, they broadcast it, interview and question the person from FSA, so there is nothing they did wrong.

 

[Nitefly]

The sale of industrial/ gm food grown in has been dropping in this country, organic food tends to be more smaller farms that have no link to the coporate world. this government have been pushing GM food with the backing of large coporations, All governemt regulation bodies are a joke, and are really there to help coporation rather than its citizens.

GM food grown or sold in this country... are you sure?

My aforementioned professor is a government advisor regarding the impact GM crops - you are talking codswallop. The UK government is extremely cautious about the use of GM crops for all of the right reasons - its still new technology and with all new technology we need to be sensible rather than jumping in headfirst

 

[Scuzi]

I don't see why this is news. The BBC has been a powerful arm of the British government's propaganda machine for years.

 

[D.P.]

If the people they interviewed on the BBC are anything to go by, the report is a load of rubbish.

The guy defending it was saying 'differences were not statistically significant' and in the same breath said the differences were 'on average 66%'.
Any statistician would say that was statistically significant.

PMSL.

Do you have even the most fundamental inclination of what statistical significance means?

An effect size of 66% is entirely irrelevant - what is the sample size, what is the sample variance, what is the distribution of the samples?

 

[D.P.]

Did anyone actually expect Organic food to be much healthier? I didn't, I just buy it to avoid consuming any sort of pesticide. No one has said it has to be more nutritious, that wasn't the point of organic food, just for it to use less chemicals in production.

Organic produce can still use pesticides!

 

[oli collett]

So what. This is 100% standard procedure. You do not include scientific papers that have a flawed scientific methodology. If some bio-organic hiippy chick does some backyard study and shows how much healther the apples she urinated on are then this has to be discarded from the list of case studies unless there is sufficient evidence that the scientific methodology was properly applied.

And if he read the report that I linked to earlier, he'd find out that's a bit of an exaggeration! See table 2 - roughly 25% of the nutrients were higher in organic food across all studies compared to <10% across selected studies.

I find it odd, that Teki was so bothered about the propaganda the BBC were putting across that he didn't even investigate far enough to read the actual paper. IF it was propaganda, he might want to analyse the paper and see if/where they went wrong, and then he might have grounds to write a post saying that the people who did the paper were guilty of something dodgy.

But that's half the problem with conspiracy theorists, they don't actually bother doing any investigation and jump to conclusions without looking at facts.

 

[Glaucus]

Another teki self goal.

What BBC says it true. There is no health benefit and in most cases no flavour benefit. Levels of pesticide on food are well below the acceptable limits and most organic food is still the rubbish varietys that are all the same size shape and provide large yields.

 

[mattheman]

GM food grown or sold in this country... are you sure?

My aforementioned professor is a government advisor regarding the impact GM crops - you are talking codswallop. The UK government is extremely cautious about the use of GM crops for all of the right reasons - its still new technology and with all new technology we need to be sensible rather than jumping in headfirst

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ag...for-approval-in-Britain-warn-campaigners.html

http://www.ukfp.org/gm-back-door

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-bid-to-allay-fears-over-gm-food-1647353.html

http://www.nutraingredients.com/Industry/UK-government-stands-behind-GM

 

[div0]

PMSL.

Do you have even the most fundamental inclination of what statistical significance means?

An effect size of 66% is entirely irrelevant - what is the sample size, what is the sample variance, what is the distribution of the samples?

Exactly.

And as an even more simple example.

If your daily intake of 'nutrient x' is meant to be 100g and a certain 'non-organic' veg has 0.01g of 'nutrient x' in it, then it doesn't matter if the 'organic' equivalent has 0.03g in it - even though this would be a 200% increase!

It would still be statistically insignificant.

 

[mattheman]

And if he read the report that I linked to earlier, he'd find out that's a bit of an exaggeration! See table 2 - roughly 25% of the nutrients were higher in organic food across all studies compared to <10% across selected studies.

I find it odd, that Teki was so bothered about the propaganda the BBC were putting across that he didn't even investigate far enough to read the actual paper. IF it was propaganda, he might want to analyse the paper and see if/where they went wrong, and then he might have grounds to write a post saying that the people who did the paper were guilty of something dodgy.

But that's half the problem with conspiracy theorists, they don't actually bother doing any investigation and jump to conclusions without looking at facts.

It is propaganda, since 2003/4 BBC have been a mouth piece for the government, it took them ages to get to report MPs expenses, even some bbc newsreaders suggest that the bbc have their own agenda.

"In a wide-ranging attack, he also claims it is now 'effectively BBC policy' to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming. He says: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.
'The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.
'But it is effectively BBC policy... that those views should not be heard."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-falling--bosses-scared-it.html#ixzz0MjsxwINe

 

[KNiVES]

I don't mean to hop on the bandwagon, but the BBC is the state-run television channel after all.

 

[Nitefly]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ag...for-approval-in-Britain-warn-campaigners.html

http://www.ukfp.org/gm-back-door

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-bid-to-allay-fears-over-gm-food-1647353.html

http://www.nutraingredients.com/Industry/UK-government-stands-behind-GM

That's a good 5 minute google there.

So there has up to this date been no GM crops grown in this country for commercial use? The government is for the use of 'safe' GM crops following vigourous research and having refused the grow them for over 20 years after they were first grown in the US? I'm not really sure what your point is.

Let's not turn this into a GM thread. The only thing worse than blind ignorance regarding organic crops is blind ignorance regarding GMOs

 

[oli collett]

It is propaganda, <completely irrelevant>

I take it you haven't read the report then? The BBC piece is a fair commentary of the paper, which seems to be scientifically sound and the conclusions fair. They have also been balanced in the sense that they have added comment from the soil association.

To call it propaganda is complete nonsense.

 

[mattheman]

That's a good 5 minute google there.

So there has up to this date been no GM crops grown in this country for commercial use? The government is for the use of 'safe' GM crops following vigourous research and having refused the grow them for over 20 years after they were first grown in the US? I'm not really sure what your point is.

Let's not turn this into a GM thread. The only thing worse than blind ignorance regarding organic crops is blind ignorance regarding GMOs

When i was looking at MPs expenses i saw lots of planet organic recipts.

 

[craptakular]

Whats wrong with GM food. Lets alter the food to make it better. Why Not? Just a bunch of tree hugging hippys who object.

+1, GM is awesome!