Farm Bill Cuts $22 Million From Organic Food Sticker Funding
    By Hank Campbell | January 29th 2013 06:00 PM | 7 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    Comments

    Hey, Hank, your thinking is revealing a very shallow understanding of "subsidies." You forgot to mention the $14 Billion that we have to "suck up" to subsidize corn and soybeans through the crop insurance. I am an organic farmer, most of us are small operations and a fast growing farm segment. The reimbursements are limited to $750 per farm. The amount that you would have to "suck up" is infinitesimal - but what you pay for corn and soy subsidies is what you should be shouting about. It is abject ignorance of the economics of farm subsidies, like yours, that keeps us from having sane legislators.

    Hank
    I think since the 1980s there has been some recognition that food subsidies are flawed but food, like energy and even science, is a strategic resource - we don't want to sent it out to the highest bidder overseas.

    What is wrong is to subsidize one brand of oil rather than another because it is processed differently than Exxon's oil and is in no other way different.  So by all means give organic corn farmers a subsidy but organic onions are a hoax so no one should be buying them, much less paying for them in stores and as taxpayers.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    So by all means give organic corn farmers a subsidy but organic onions are a hoax so no one should be buying them, much less paying for them in stores and as taxpayers.
    Why are organic onions a hoax?
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Hank
    The only rational concern someone might have about food is that organic toxic pesticides are somehow magically less harmful than synthetic toxic pesticides - onions have too many layers, pesticides are not getting in there regardless.  Same with pineapple and lots of other things.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    According to this paper called 'Methodologic flaws in selecting studies and comparing nutrient concentrations led Dangour et al to miss the emerging forest amid the trees'  by Benbrook, Davis&Andrews, there were significant differences in nutrient content between organic and non-organic crops and magnesium, zinc, flavonoids, sugars, and dry matter was statistically higher in the organic than in the conventional crops.  :-
    Dangour et al considered 162 articles that reported comparisons from field trials, farm surveys, or market basket studies. They excluded 54% of these studies simply because the organic certifying body wasn't stated, thus eliminating many otherwise valid comparison studies. Conversely, they apparently accepted studies with mixed cultivars and breeds because they required only identification of the cultivars or breeds not that they be identical within a study. It is well known that there can be large differences in nutrient concentrations between different cultivars of the same crop (2). They also arbitrarily excluded from analysis any nutrient with <10 valid studies, even though for some of these nutrients many more than 10 statistical comparisons had been made (3, Table 2).

    Therefore, even though the authors are emphatic that there is no evidence for the claims of higher nutrient concentrations in organic crops, what they don't present either in their article or in the online supplemental data are that when all 162 studies are included, phenolic compounds, magnesium, zinc, flavonoids, sugars, and dry matter were also statistically higher in the organic than in the conventional crops. They also arbitrarily excluded from analysis any nutrient with <10 valid studies, even though for some of these nutrients many more than 10 statistical comparisons had been made Therefore, even though the authors are emphatic that there is no evidence for the claims of higher nutrient concentrations in organic crops, what they don't present either in their article or in the online supplemental data are that when all 162 studies are included, phenolic compounds, magnesium, zinc, flavonoids, sugars, and dry matter were also statistically higher in the organic than in the conventional crops
    They also found that 'across 11 measured nutrients, organic foods contained, on average, 25% higher concentrations of nutrients. For 6 of these 11 nutrients, concentrations in the organic foods averaged ≥10% higher; the conventional foods were ≥10% higher for only one beneficial nutrient (protein).'
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Hank
    Then buy organic onions, it's your money and you can personally waste it any way you want. What shouldn't be done is that the stickers get subsidized by American taxpayers.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Yes, I agree :)
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine