is Organic food better

[Johnboy]

Hi Richard,
Strangely I do not regard your posting as a snipe.
In this instance your have actually tried to explain what you mean. To me that is quite acceptable but what is not acceptable to me is a one or two line comment which nobody but you know what it is all about.
The whole trouble with our last postings, yours, Alan and mine are the result of an article in newspapers.
Newspapers can be as controversial as they want and more often than not the reporting is not of the best quality and are generally the result of a hack earning a bob or two.
For your information Pyrethrum in fact comes from a Chrysanthemum and not a Geranium but however I gather the point you were making.
The point that I was trying to make is that it is no good defending organics and making out that there a no drawbacks in the system because they exist.
As I stated in my very first posting this has nothing to do with home organic gardeners producing good wholesome crops it is to do with what is occurring with commercial organics and what is marketed and where it comes from. Had you bothered to listen to the programme that initiated this thread then it would have been abundantly clear to you. As it is you went into a realm of unreality and were sniping without being in possession of the full facts. To me this is totally unacceptable.
JB.

[alan refail]

Johnboy

Fair play now.

"Newspapers can be as controversial as they want and more often than not the reporting is not of the best quality and are generally the result of a hack earning a bob or two."

Try replacing "newspapers" with "radio programmes".
I'm not sure the objective reporters at the Guardian and Independent would appreciate your view of them as "a hack earning a bob or two".

The point I was making in posting the links was that here were some examples of real research by independent scientists. I hoped I had found a group of people whose views you might respect - given your previous praise of scientists.

Alan

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
I think that it has gone far beyond being simply fair play and for this reason.
If a newspaper states anything adverse with regards to anything organic the reporter is reputed to be totally wrong by supporters of organics.
It seems that newspaper reports that praise organics are wonderful and those that do not are reported by the supporters of organics as biased and the question always comes up who paid for the research and a great number of other tactics are used because to some, irrespective if it is correct or not, organics must be paramount. It is through this way of dealing with this topic that organics has come as far as it has.
Organics is not the be all and end all and there are some very great problems that are unravelling at this present time.
The programme was, I feel, simply trying to lay those facts before the public yet it is seem by supporters of organics to be somehow unfair.
I thought that the programme was very fair.
Fresh produce is fresh produce whether it be organic or not yet now all of a sudden it is not.
Alan, which ever way you view it you cannot have your cake and eat it!! But as usual those who support organics think they and they alone can have it so.
JB.

[alan refail]

Johnboy

Now you're going round in circles.

You choose to ignore my last paragraph:

The point I was making in posting the links was that here were some examples of real research by independent scientists. I hoped I had found a group of people whose views you might respect - given your previous praise of scientists.

I did not think the articles came down on one side or the other. I posted the links as I thought they were objective - or at least a guide to something more objective than the predictable (and largely unsubstatiated) assertions from blinkered supporters and blinkered objectors.

Alan

[Jenny Green]

Hi Alan,
I think that it has gone far beyond being simply fair play and for this reason.
If a newspaper states anything adverse with regards to anything organic the reporter is reputed to be totally wrong by supporters of organics.
It seems that newspaper reports that praise organics are wonderful and those that do not are reported by the supporters of organics as biased and the question always comes up who paid for the research and a great number of other tactics are used because to some, irrespective if it is correct or not, organics must be paramount. It is through this way of dealing with this topic that organics has come as far as it has.
Organics is not the be all and end all and there are some very great problems that are unravelling at this present time.
The programme was, I feel, simply trying to lay those facts before the public yet it is seem by supporters of organics to be somehow unfair.
I thought that the programme was very fair.
Fresh produce is fresh produce whether it be organic or not yet now all of a sudden it is not.
Alan, which ever way you view it you cannot have your cake and eat it!! But as usual those who support organics think they and they alone can have it so.
JB.

You talk as if exactly the same attitude isn't taken by supporters of conventional farming and the people who live in their pockets. It's completely normal and natural to have two sides disagreeing over the veracity of their respective claims. That's democracy at work and one way of trying to understand the actual truth of the matter.
Are you suggesting that people should blindly believe the assertions of the agrochemical companies and their best buddies, such as John Krebbs? To do so would be extremely naive.
If you are denying the right of the ordinary citizen to question the intentions and motives of those with power, money and influence then I'm afraid you and I are on very different wavelengths Johnboy.
I don't think any supporter of organics has said the programme was unfair. In fact, I think those who listened to it said it was fair, and said that organics was better in some circumstances and not others. Who here has argued with that?
You seem to be putting words in the mouths of organic supporters then arguing with them. It would be helpful if you could quote what exactly it is you're responding to and then maybe we could have a more reasoned debate.

[alan refail]

The research by Dr Kirsten Brandt at Newcastle University looks interesting.

Alan