Ars: Birds turn their beaks up at organic food

Soo... What do birds instinctively understand about organic that we don't?

Okay repeat after me: Organic doesn't automatically = good, or better, and non-organic, conventional or even GM doesn't automatically = bad.

Better living through chemistry!

Birds turn their beaks up at organic food: "

Is organic food everything its advocates claim to be? A new study published in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
describes an experiment in which the subjects were free from human biases.
The authors found that wild birds preferred 'normal' bird food to the organic
option.

To study this burning issue, the researchers set up pairs of identical
bird feeders in over 30 locations around northern England. The feeders
contained two types of the same variety of wheat seeds, one organic and
one conventional. The researchers then monitored the rate at which each
seed was eaten over the course of a few weeks.

It was found that the birds preferentially ate the conventional
seeds. To make
sure that there wasn't something about the relative placement of the
feeders, the researchers switched each pair, and found that the birds
learned the new location of the conventional seeds and continued to
prefer eating from that feeder.

The experiment was repeated over a subsequent winter with a
different type of seed, but produced the same results. More controlled
laboratory trials with canaries found similar preferences for
conventional over organic. In an attempt to explain this disparity, the
researchers analyzed the seeds and found that the conventional seed
contained upwards of 10 percent more protein per seed, most likely due
to the use of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers used in conventional
farming techniques.

Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2010. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.4025 (About
DOIs).

Read the comments on this post

"

From the Rest of the Story: GlaxoSmithKline lie about smokeless tobacco

Dr. Siegel is on top of 'em again. His words say it all--not much I can really add.

GlaxoSmithKline lie about smokeless tobacco: "

From the Nicorette website:

A lot of people believe that taking smokeless tobacco is safer than smoking cigarettes. This is not true.

This is an outright lie. Smokeless tobacco is far safer than smoking cigarettes. Perhaps Glaxo's justification for this statement is that there are still health risks associated with smokeless tobacco. And so there are, just as there is a risk involved with most things in life, but they are tiny compared to the risks associated with smoking cigarettes. Glaxo might just as well say:

A lot of people believe that eating chocolate is safer than smoking cigarettes. This is not true.

Or, indeed:

A lot of people believe that using Nicorette is safer than smoking cigarettes. This is not true.

We have seen this kind of fabrication before from the US Surgeon General (amongst others). Under the Data Quality Act, his office finally had to retract the lie that smokeless is not safer. I covered this in an article entitled The Untouchables back in 2008.

In 2004, the National Legal and Policy Center complained about a statement in a booklet produced by the National Institute on Aging which read: 'Some people think smokeless tobacco (chewing tobacco and snuff), pipes, and cigars are safer than cigarettes. They are not.' This was, of course, false. Smokeless tobacco is known to be around 98% safer than cigarettes. The complaint was upheld and as a result, the US Government is no longer allowed to pretend that the health risks associated with smokeless tobacco are as great as those associated with cigarettes*.

The upshot is that the National Institute on Aging now says: 'Some people think smokeless tobacco (chewing tobacco and snuff), pipes, and cigars are safe. They are not.' And former Surgeon General Richard Carmona - whose 2006 report into passive smoking is one big DQA complaint waiting to happen - had to subtly change his tune from 'smokeless tobacco is not a safer substitute for cigarette smoking' to 'smokeless tobacco is not a safe substitute for cigarette smoking' (my italics).

A slender difference indeed, but an important one, because at least now these statements are not outright lies. What has replaced them may still be misleading - they do not hint at how much safer smokeless tobacco is - but, as Jacob Sullum asked sardonically in Reason magazine, 'Why lie about smokeless tobacco when a misleading half-truth will do?' Demanding half-truths rather than outright lies from the anti-smoking lobby might be the most that can be hoped for in this day and age. The Data Quality Act may be the only way to get them.

* Anti-smoking groups, websites and charities who are not publicly owned remain be free to lie about smokeless tobacco and frequently do. For example: 'The fact is, chewing tobacco is every bit as dangerous as smoking it.' or 'There's a widely held myth that smokeless tobacco is a safe alternative to cigarettes, when actually it's just as dangerous as smoking.'

Thanks to Bill Godshall for the tip.

"

Dr. Siegel scores another bullseye

Over at "The Rest of the Story" Dr. Siegel devastatingly analyzes American Lung's inexplicable attitude toward ecig's. Of course such a fine organization would never allow itself to become beholden to corporate interests, or have anything other than the bests interests of the public at heart. Of course not... Another fine example of science compromised "in the public interest."

Bastards.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/05/american-lung-association-says-there-is.html

Reason: Another Science Fail

And they wonder why, given the horrible politicization of science in all kinds of areas, why we're not all that eager to jump on the IPCC bandwagon. Think AGW is probably true? Yep. Think there's a bunch of things we should be doing anyway that would mitigate AGW? Yep. Trust the IPCC, Science (the magazine), the AGW/IPCC apologists all and their photoshopped polar-bears-of-horror and whatever their attendant hidden agenda(s) are? Not. A. Chance.

When the American Cancer Society Calls You Out ...: "

...It's
pretty good evidence that you're a scaremongering regulatory shill.
As I noted
yesterday, the President's Cancer Panel released a alarmist
report asserting that the burden of cancers caused by environmental
exposures to carcinogens was 'grossly underestimated.' By
environmental, the panel focused chiefly on exposures to man-made
chemicals. As I also noted, the new claims being made by the report
seemed grossly overestimated based on the science. In response to
the new report, the American Cancer Society has issued a
press release that is highly critical of the panel's report.
The release states:

Unfortunately, the perspective of the report is unbalanced by
its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer, and by
its dismissal of cancer prevention efforts aimed at the major known
causes of cancer (tobacco, obesity, alcohol, infections, hormones,
sunlight) as “focussed narrowly.”

The report is most provocative when it restates hypotheses as if
they were established facts. For example, its conclusion that
“the true burden of environmentally (i.e. pollution) induced cancer
has been grossly underestimated” does not represent scientific
consensus. Rather, it reflects one side of a scientific
debate that has continued for almost 30 years.

In other words, the President's Cancer Panel report is an
advocacy document masquerading as science. For more scientifically
based information on the burden of cancer caused by environmental
exposures, please take a look at the article, 'American
Cancer Society Perspectives on Enviromental Factors and
Cancer,' published in the Cancer Journal for
Clinicians last October.

"

Stossel: Where Are the Bodies?

A couple of days old, but worth a read if you haven't seen it:

Where Are the Bodies?: "

Today’s NYTimes features yet another scare story about industrial chemicals.

The writers say that the widespread use of the weedkiller Roundup has created “superweeds” which are herbicide resistant! That “could lead to higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs and more pollution.”

Well, it could.

The MSM always obsess about terrible things that chemicals will do. They predicted the cancer epidemic that never happened. They predicted the male sterility crisis that never happened. Now they claim that the preservative BPA in plastic bottles is injures us. If these omnipresent chemicals are so evil, where are the bodies? We’ve been exposed for years now, and yet Americans live longer than ever.

The MSM almost never point out that BPA reduced botulism poisonings, or that Roundup saves lives by lowering the cost of food. That doesn’t fit the anti-industry narrative.

So it was nice to discover “Truth or Scare,” the blog of a woman who calls herself “Junk Science Mom.”

This week she calls out scaremonger/hustler David Fenton:

“If you believe what you see and hear in the media, those fighting an unnecessary battle against bisphenol-A (BPA) are altruistic individuals concerned about health and safety. Concerned about their children and their environment. It's all rainbows and butterflies. After all, who wouldn't want to protect babies from being poisoned to death?

But there is an ugly truth behind the scenes that you will never hear about in the media. Greed, propaganda, political agendas, profits, lies and scams. And it all can be tied to one person and one powerful PR firm. David Fenton and Fenton Communications….

He is the puppet master and we moms are his puppets. He orchestrates the scare and we, being fearful for our children, unknowingly carry out his plan for him. He comes out a winner, and we are duped into wasting our time, money and energy fighting a battle that never needed to be fought”

Good for you, junk science mom, whoever you are. Truth or Scare is a wonderful addition to the debate.

"

Reason: "Sustainable" Agriculture Ain't -- Robert Paarlberg on Organic Ag Myths

"Sustainable" Agriculture Ain't -- Robert Paarlberg on Organic Ag Myths: "

Wellesley political scientist Robert Paarlberg
has a superb article over at Foreign Policy pointing out
that 'organic, local, and slow - is not recipe for saving the
world's hungry millions.' Here's just a taste:

In Europe and the United States, a new line of thinking has
emerged in elite circles that opposes bringing improved seeds and
fertilizers to traditional farmers and opposes linking those
farmers more closely to international markets. Influential food
writers, advocates, and celebrity restaurant owners are repeating
the mantra that 'sustainable food' in the future must be organic,
local, and slow. But guess what: Rural Africa already has such a
system, and it doesn't work. Few smallholder farmers in Africa use
any synthetic chemicals, so their food is de facto organic. High
transportation costs force them to purchase and sell almost all of
their food locally. And food preparation is painfully slow. The
result is nothing to celebrate: average income levels of only $1 a
day and a one-in-three chance of being malnourished.

If we are going to get serious about solving global hunger, we
need to de-romanticize our view of preindustrial food and farming.
And that means learning to appreciate the modern,
science-intensive, and highly capitalized agricultural system we've
developed in the West. Without it, our food would be more expensive
and less safe. In other words, a lot like the hunger-plagued rest
of the world.

Amen.

Go here for
Reason's 2008 interview with Paarlberg discussing his
book, And
here for his insightful Foreign Policy article,
'Attention Whole Food Shoppers.'

"

Another gem from Dr. Michael Siegel

Smoking's bad for you. Electronic cigarettes, while still probably not exactly good for you, are much, much less bad for you. So why are ACS, ASH, the FDA et al trying to stamp them out? Dr. Siegel (no friend of smokers, btw), weighs in. An extended visit to his blog and review of its contents is highly recommended...

"IN MY VIEW: American Cancer Society Doesn't Want Smokers to Quit, Unless They Use Pharmaceutical Products: "According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), quitting or cutting down on smoking by use of electronic cigarettes is not a good thing and harms the public's health.

According to an article in the Washington Post: 'A spokesman [of the ACS] said it believes the devices were created to get around smoking bans and violate the spirit of smoking bans. 'Allowing them would really be turning back the clock on what we're trying to do in Virginia to create smoke-free workplaces and environments that promote health,' said American Cancer Society spokesman Keenan Caldwell.'

The Rest of the Story

The American Cancer Society needs, first of all, to get its facts straight. Electronic cigarettes are not tobacco products and therefore, they are not devices which were created to 'get around' smoking bans. In fact, electronic cigarettes were created in order to give smokers a safer alternative to the deadly regular cigarettes. In other words, they were created for an inherently health-promoting purpose: getting smokers off cigarettes.

The American Cancer Society needs, second of all, to look at the scientific evidence. There is compelling evidence that electronic cigarettes are being used by many smokers to either quit smoking or at very least, to significantly cut down on the amount they smoke. Thus, these devices are contributing towards a major improvement in the public's health. Moreover, there is strong evidence, based on extensive laboratory testing, that these products are much safer than conventional cigarettes.

What the American Cancer Society appears not to recognize is that every electronic cigarette used is one less cigarette smoked. Actually, it's about 10 less cigarettes smoked because a single cartridge can last for quite a while. In what way is a great reduction in cigarette use not a health-promoting effect?

The problem for the American Cancer Society is, apparently, that while smokers may be quitting or cutting down using e-cigarettes, that quitting is not being done using pharmaceutical products made by companies with which the ACS has a financial arrangement or from which the ACS has received substantial funding.

The American Cancer Society appears not to be inherently concerned about the health of smokers, but instead, to be primarily concerned with whether or not those smokers support the pharmaceutical companies upon which the ACS relies for funding. If a smoker quits using a nicotine inhaler or nicotine patch, it's a great thing. If a smoker quits by switching to vaping, it's a bad thing. Sorry, but that's not supporting health. It's supporting the financial interests of two big industries: Big Pharma and Big Tobacco.

The American Cancer Society should be ashamed of itself for telling the nation's vapers that cutting down significantly on smoking or quitting smoking entirely is bad for their health and that it doesn't promote improved health in the nation. But what they should be even more ashamed of is that their financial conflict of interest with Big Pharma, undisclosed in any of these articles, is shaping their public position and leading to advice that is going to substantially harm the public's health."