Richard Feynman on organic food and pseudoscience - video

Nobel prize-winning theoretical physicist Richard Feynman on organic food and pseudoscience, in 1981.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo

Feynman's position is related to a logical fallacy called Appeal to nature - assuming that something is superior because it is "natural", or inferior because it is "unnatural". Those applying this tactic present varying definitions of "natural".

Is food healthier, or tastier, because it is organic? I'm open to new evidence, but, as I understand it, our answer in 2017 is the same as Feynman's answer in 1981:

Quote:

---

"may be true, may not be true, but it hasn't been demonstrated one way or the other"

---

Previously:
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...2811#post97204

It's so tragic. Feynman would have made a wonderful president. No, scratch that. He wouldn't have had the patience to deal with a bureaucracy. But make him the first American dictator and many of our problems would have been solved.

The problem with that is that Richard would have refused the job. Like Einstein refusing the proffered presidency of the new state of Israel, he would know that he didn't tolerate fools gladly and the job would have driven him to distraction.

I'd agree with him to a point, and that's when money becomes involved in a "scientific outcome" - hence drugs like thalidomide get onto the market which had been scientifically tested and approved for human use!!! There is a litany of lies spruiked by the scientific community (tobacco comes to mind as well) that we are becoming jaded over announcements that XYZ will save the world. It seems to have infiltrated all aspects of life - 40 years ago eggs were good for you, 20 years ago they were bad, currently they are back in favour. Same with margarine versus butter, skim milk versus full fat, modern wheat versus pre 1940 wheat.

I saw an announcement just recently that a university had found a cure for infertility and the media went into a frenzy, only to have the corrections printed the following day that it was infertility in mice and had no foreseeable human use.

Obviously the media has a lot to answer for, but also the way that research is in constant need of funding and if you don't produce "something" within the year you lose funding and lose your job - so a real pressure to fudge data and results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mklotz

It's so tragic. Feynman would have made a wonderful president. No, scratch that. He wouldn't have had the patience to deal with a bureaucracy. But make him the first American dictator and many of our problems would have been solved.

The problem with that is that Richard would have refused the job. Like Einstein refusing the proffered presidency of the new state of Israel, he would know that he didn't tolerate fools gladly and the job would have driven him to distraction.

---

:beer:
I would have voted for Mr Feynman for POTUs or Dictator. I'd trust his good nature to fix what he could, then bow out.
The Scientific Method is the Key to the Universe.

https://youtu.be/0KmimDq4cSU

I don't know Feynman from Adam, but applying his scientific method he's doing just exactly like those he's accusing. He says they make stuff up and don't do the research. Well he keeps saying and even states again at the end he doesn't know and hasn't done any research. He's made assumptions. And he's making this assumption in '81. I could go into what I know of the food industry from what having worked in it I know, but there is more spent in this country to cast doubt and bury AFTER the research has been done than the research. Because the industries find it inconvenient and are more worried about profit than public health.

I also have the dubious benefit of seeing the direct effect of pesticides on migrant farmworkers offspring because my x was an itenerant infant special Ed teacher. But I'm sure that is less relevant than perceived conspiracy theory doubts generated by industry funded "experts". Just because somebody is good in one field, a theoretical field at that, makes them qualified for government? I would think the fiasco being played out before the world right now in US politics would prove that to be a false assumption.

Feynman's position is fairly narrow: is food healthier or tastier because it is organic? Maybe, maybe not, but it hasn't been demonstrated.

These days, it's possible that higher-quality food correlates with "organic". After all, while some organic farms are definitely large-scale commercial industrial operations, many are small scale, and spend more money per acre on food production, and have higher levels of transparency (anyone can visit the farm). We know that these traits are reasonable indicators of food quality: smaller batches, more money per acre, more transparency.

For example, let's say I could see a photo of two people who are in charge of farms that grow food. And, based on just seeing those photos, I would decide whether or not to eat a dinner comprised of food from their farm. Now let's say that one of the people wore a suit in their photo, and one of them wore overalls. I might choose to eat the food grown by the "overalls" person. That's not crazy. It's an indicator to me that the person in charge is closer to the work of farming, which is a reasonable possible indicator of food quality to me.

But what if I then tried to apply my "Overalls" standard to the entire food market, and insisted on only eating "Overalls Certified" food? Then executives in charge of companies who practice unscrupulous farming could simply wear overalls instead of a suit.

Focusing on the source of what you consume (whether you are consuming food, information, or culture) is very good for a society. But trying to approximate the knowledge gained from that focus in terms like "organic" is not a great solution.

That's how I see Feynman's position; in light of the concept of Correlation does not imply causation.

While I cannot claim to have known MR Feynman I do remember reading a couple of books either written by him or by an author attempting to explain MR Feynman's theories and views.
No I do not buy into the he would have been a good Presidential candidate philosophy, or dictator possibly though. Mr Feynman had an extremely low tolerance level for fools and stupidity. Ignorance could be treated and in some cases even cured.
His disdain towards pseudo-scientist directly parallels my feelings towards them the same as my feelings towards those I called pseudo-engineers or those who were in high engineering positions without having worked in their respective fields as apprentices either prior to or after obtaining their degrees
Now when it comes to the subject of this food is terrible for you or you should be eating these foods every day or never eat this food without eating that food as well these so called nutritional gurus are little more than publicity seeking hacks in my opinion. The same goes for politicians, a subject which every time it comes up feels like a thorn being shoved in my side so I try to avoid it whenever possible. The news media has long since ceased to report news in favor of creating pointless talking points in hopes of fanning a spark into a raging fire which can only be extinguished by dousing with vast quantities of flammable liquids

The bottom line can be easily demonstrated by anybody who has a home garden. There is no comparison between homegrown tomatoes, tree fruit and most vegetables in taste. Most homegrown food doesn't need pesticides because it's not mechanically tended, left unattended for most of its grow cycle. Most pesticides are hard to detect taste wise but there is no reason in my book to think it's not toxic to humans as it is to bugs good and bad. It's only a matter of scale, were bigger and we have a liver which bugs good and bad don't have. Our death, disease, and mutation takes longer so it can be disputed as to cause.

It's not as simple a comparison as Feynman implies because #1 he's using the metric of his time "natural". Organic is by definition a factor you leave out, grown without pesticides. And it used to take a verifiable process to have your product labeled organic. And as usual big AG has weakened and co opted that to be almost as meaningless as natural. By 81 big AG had already co opted natrual and it was obsolete as evidenced by natural was even chemicaly engineered products being labeled natural by 81.

Agreed; "natural" is totally unreliable as any sort of food indicator.

I think you're generally correct about "homegrown" food, in that, if given the choice, I would usually select it over non-homegrown, because, referencing my history of eating homegrown and non-homegrown food, I perceive homegrown food as being tastier. But why? It could be because it's grown in soil more likely to be richer. Or perhaps it's grown more attentively and carefully? Or at higher cost? Its production is also much more accountable; the grower can't hide behind any sort of cultural or corporate structure.

The main difference between homegrown(which I put the stuff you get at farmers markets in the same catagory) and industrial farming is not only the amount of actual hands on care, but the race to market. All fruit and vegetables harvested for market are picked at the earliest stage possible. As soon as it passes min sugar requirements it's harvested. In most cases you would not want to eat most of it straight out of the field because it's not ripe. Especially oranges. They are picked green then put in huge sealed rooms and gassed to induce the orange color. Then processed. If you ever have a tree ripened orange, you'll know why store bought oranges are soooooo AWEFUL. Same for tomatoes. BTW, all ripe and over ripe fruit is deemed "culls" and either dumped for livestock feed or in the case of oranges turned into juice.

And every farmer wants his crop to be picked first when prices are highest before the other competitors get to market and drive the price down. Then you add WallSt., banksters, retailers, shippers, co ops etc all messing with the market you get a volitile mess. And now there is an even more insidious players patenting food with GMO's. The lame argument that man has been genetically engineering our world since the advent of farming is BS. Hybridization NEVER allowed man to splice the gene of a fish into a tomato or cause a plant to produce pesticide in itself by virus. All this with the goal of making the farmer dependent on the corp for their seeds for every new crop. And because you can't contain pollen the mess spreads and others who don't want to be involved are soon assimilated and destroyed.

With over 7 billion hungry human mouths on this planet, plus the additional plant substances required to feed the meat product animals we eat, when we factor in the total amount of accessible arable land couple the limited numbers of folks willing to till or tend to this land for raising crops life as we know it would be very hard to imagine without GMO's and pesticides.
In defense of the commercial AG industry, research in holding down costs while increasing production is a delicate balance. On one hand if they use just barely enough extremely toxic pesticide to kill the bugs their costs may be less, however some residual remaining on the plants are not easily or economically removed and some of these pesticides are proven very harmful for human consumption. SO these are restricted for food stuffs destined for animal feeds. Then it is discovered the animals absorb these chemicals in their tissues and can be passed on to humans when they eat the meat products.
So a chemical with lower toxicity levels must be developed and used meaning higher quantities are usually required or at the very least doe to the complexity of manufacturing the cost per unit is much higher the added downside is with lower toxicity to humans and animals comes a lower kill ratio to the bugs which leads to the bugs developing immune tolerance levels hence new formulations are required
DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) developed in 1874 was probably the most effective bug killer ever developed, but in its 80 some years of use many species of bugs had started to evolve to the point that it was requiring more and more of the chemical to be applied each passing year. It was only when the application levels reached a critical level that it became known to be harmful to some humans. Not all mind you just some but the percentages were high enough to make its use unacceptable which was enough to get it banned for use in the USA.
One interesting thing about DDT is it is still produced and sprayed on the walls in houses in some countries today as a mosquito repellent it will not kill the mosquitoes like it did during the Panama canal construction days as they have developed a tolerance to it but it is still a highly effective means of repelling them.
In the post WWII era of Europe many species of malaria carrying mosquitoes were all but eradicated. I believe that had the USA taken the initiative back in the early 1950 when the huge B52 bombers were developed had DDT been loaded in them and the entire planet been carpeted with spray over the course of a few years mosquito's as well as many other species of bugs would have been made extinct. Had this been done the pest control problem of today would actually be controllable.
and more focus on less harmful to soils fertilizers could also have been developed

Now here's one we might all agree is a bit excessive:

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...c_charcoal.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon

Now here's one we might all agree is a bit excessive:

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...c_charcoal.jpg

---

Let me see the last time I checked charcoal was made from removing the impurities of wood chunks or sawdust by the use of high temperatures to make lumps & chunks or pressed and even extruded
to advertise as being 100% organic is just a ploy to get millennials to pay more for something they themselves could make in their back yards from tree trimmings