[GPSCC-chat] Prop 37: dog food v. steak ad

Mon Nov 5 21:37:57 PST 2012

Below please find a copy and past job of the discussion I had with Socialism Activist and Biology Student Steven Argue on Facebook about my earlier reply to Spencer about the merits of the movie Genetic Roulette:

The url of discussion is:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/occupysantacruz/permalink/338998792864187/?comment_id=339741712789895&notif_t=like

John Thielking: 
In discussing the merits of the pro prop 37 movie Genetic Roulette (available on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnlTYFKBg18&feature=youtu.be ) I found some interesting articles on the Internet, one which debunks the claims made in the movie that plants can be nutritionally deficient compared to organically grown plants and one which shows a Rutgers study result showing marked differences in mineral content between organic vs conventionally grown vegetables. Since you are a student of Biology Steven Argue, care to comment on the ludicrous "quantized theory" of plant growth presented in the Quack Watch article? They claim that organic and conventional plants will have the same nutrient content because if there are any nutrient deficiencies in the soil, the plants simply won't grow at all. This contradicts anecdotal accounts of zuchinnis growing as big as my arm if the plants are given super food when they are growing up for instance. The quack
 watch article is here: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/organic.html and the Rutgers results are here: http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/whyorganic/whyorganic.htm

Steven Argue's !st response: 
John, in answer to your questions, the real advantage of organic foods is that they lack pesticides. This is a huge advantage for the consumer, the workers and farmers who grow the produce, and the environment. 

Dr. Stephen Berrett makes a number of glaring mistakes, including saying that there is no difference between organic and non-organic foods because pesticide residues in non-organic foods are not high. This is just plain stupid. Pesticides are poisons made to kill animals and they are also toxic to people. Many do pose hazards in low quantities. For him to claim there is no difference is absurd.

He is also wrong to say that organic crops aren't better for the environment. The fact that farmers may switch to pesticides under certain conditions doesn't change the fact that foods grown through organic methods are better for the environment.

Berrett is, however, correct in saying there is no difference in nutrition between organic and non-organically grown crops.. To varying degrees plants can grow without proper nutrition, and this can have some impacts on nutrition, but this has nothing to do with whether the crop is grown organically or not. Herbicides and fungicides could have some impact on the nutrient uptake of certain plant species, but if those impacts are very big, they will kill the plant. I simply do not trust that other site you link to about organic nutrition because it makes no scientific sense, contains a lot of very specific and exact information, but does not cite any study or researchers in any specific way, and is a site set set-up to sell products. 

Still Dr. Berrett is wrong on the most important points where organics do matter: they are safer for the workers, farmers, consumers, and the environment.

Farm workers and their children have many problems due to pesticides. Here are some materials the UFW has on the question:

http://www.ufw.org/_board.php?b_code=res_white

John Thielking's reply:
Thanks for the info Steven Argue. I did a little more digging on the Internet and it appears that the original study cited by many health food outlets claiming a wide variation in mineral content between organic vs conventionally grown vegetables may have been widely misquoted. The original study was done in 1948 and can be read here: http://njaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/bearreport/. The study shows wide variations in mineral content of vegetables depending on what area of the US they were grown in and what kinds of fertilizers were used. The results do support the contentions presented in Genetic Roulette that crops can be successfully grown while having wide variations in mineral content, but says nothing about organic vs conventionally grown mineral content. I will continue to attempt to contact a Doctor at the National Institute Of Whole Health who published a summary of the Rutgers study that she claims shows variations in mineral content between organic
 vs conventional. Her article is located here: http://www.dailystrength.org/health_blogs/georgianna-donadio/article/rutgers-university-study-organic-versus-non-organically-grown-produce and her institute's phone number is 1-888-354-4325 but the citation she has at the bottom of the page while showing some nutritional variation in organic vs commercial does not back up her main thesis.

Steven Argue and one other person liked John Thielking's reply.

--- On Sat, 11/3/12, John Thielking <pagesincolor at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: John Thielking <pagesincolor at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Prop 37: dog food v. steak ad
To: "GPSCC" <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>, "Spencer Graves" <spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com>
Date: Saturday, November 3, 2012, 8:24 PM

Spencer and all,

With all due respect, I think that the movie balances out the misleading pro GMO and pro pesticide propaganda that is out there --- way out there it turns out after doing just a little research. 

As an example of pesticide industry propaganda vs real science compare the following two articles.  The first one is from Quack Watch, the site that specializes in "exposing" natural healers and so on as frauds.  This site makes the claim that I have heard repeated on mainstream news that there is no significant nutritional difference between Organic and conventionally grown food.  It also advances a rather perposterous "quantized theory" of plant growth that says that plants will only grow under conditions where when they reach maturity they have identical nutritional content between Organic and conventional crops. 
If there are nutritional deficiencies in the soil, the claim goes, the plants won't grow at all.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/organic.html

The second site summarizes results from a study of the mineral content of Organic vs conventional food done by the respected Rutgers University

http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/whyorganic/whyorganic.htm

I would say that the Rutgers study backs up the claim made in the movie that GMO crops (and/or crops treated with pesticides) are mineral deficient.  Why the mainstream media continues to parrot the line that there is no significant difference in nutritional content between Organic and conventional food is a bit of a mystery to me. Thanks.

Sincerely,

John Thielking

--- On Sat, 11/3/12, Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com> wrote:

From: Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com>
Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Prop 37: dog food v. steak ad
To: "GPSCC" <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
Date: Saturday, November 3, 2012, 10:31 AM

Hello, All:  

      The "No on 37" campaign is saying in part, "Dog food with meat requires a label, but meat for human consumption does not.  It makes no sense."  

      This is deliberately misleading.  A more understandable statement is, "Dog food with meat (and GMO corn or soy) requires a label, but meat for human (or animal) consumption does not." Now it makes sense.  

      Monsanto and others are spending over $1 million per day disseminating this kind of message, and Prop 37 (GMO labeling) may be defeated.  You can help pass GMO labeling by tweeting or emailing everyone you know in California with something like, "Confused by anti-Prop 37 ad? Dog food with meat (and GMO corn or soy) requires a label, but meat for human (or animal) consumption does not." (140 characters)  

      This corrects a deliberate deception on "www.noprop37.com".  (For a copy of this page with annotations, see "https://files.pbworks.com/download/djdB7SF1ui/occupy/60654211/No37.pdf".)  

      The movie "Genetic Roulette" was screened at the Peace Center last night.  On balance, I felt the movie was gross propaganda but not nearly as bad asthe "No on 37" campaign.  If the movie were true, accurate, and balanced, I think that the opposition to GMO foods would have been much greater much sooner, fewer GMO foods would actually be on the market, and the law would require GMO labeling.  

WIKIPEDIA AND SOCIAL CHANGE 

      In the month between Thanksgiving and Christmas last year, the Wikipedia article on SOPA got a million views:  Editing Wikipedia is potentially one of the highest leverage activities anyone can engage in.  

      I'd be happy to teach people how to edit Wikipedia -- both their markup language and their rules for appropriate content and editing.  (I've made over 500 edits.)

      If people are interested, we can schedule a place to meet and get to work.  

      For example, there is a huge gap between the Movie "Genetic Roulette" (http://geneticroulettemovie.com;  http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette) and the information available on Wikipedia.  Whether Prop 37 passes or fails on Tuesday, the issue will still be active.  It would be good to check the sources cited in the Genetic Roulette book, see if they say what the book claims, find counter arguments, and describe both from a neutral point of view in appropriate Wikipedia articles.  Doing that could have a huge impact, I think.  However, I can't do it myself.  

      Best Wishes, 
      Spencer 

-- 
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph:  408-655-4567
web:  www.structuremonitoring.com

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20121105/fdc18d6b/attachment.html>