Comments

1
Scientist Discovers Pesticides Harm Insects
2
Conclusion: Pests fare better in the absence of pesticides.

Give that kid a Nobel!
3
DDT is the way for me. Kill those damn bugs.
4
Technically, fruit flies may be responding to two things.

One is that the level of pesticides is much much lower (usually about one-tenth) in organic foods, which may have pesticide contamination in shipping, handling, and residual traces from nearby crops.

The second is that organic foods tend to have a slightly higher nutrient level of the types of sugars they tend to prefer.

However, some studies show that prepared meals that contain cumin and other spices have higher BPA levels than typical processed foods, so it depends on raw food (fruit, veggies) or prepared meals. I doubt they cooked meals for the fruit flies, but I can check the paper if it's important.
5
Oh, hell. Fine.

I am so happy to see this young [really, really young] woman pursue and succeed at scientific endeavors. I hope this success and acclaim will take her far in life and encourage other young girls, much like my own children, to learn and discover.

But seriously? Non-pesticide-covered fruit doesn't kill bugs?
6
The fruit files only prefer organic because they are not the ones buying the produce.

Ba-dum-tish.
7
I think it's that great that young people can get involved in basic science. I never really understood science fairs when I was in school and see it as a real missed opportunity.
8
Obviously fruit flies need vouchers for farmer's markets.
9
@5: Yeah, STEM interest is awesome, hopefully she moves to better quality research from this. This is still less cringe-inducing than the stuff I've seen at the college level, I suppose.
10
Quantitatively us. Organic also tastes better. Than as a food source, if it were nature acting, the less tasteful foods would be avoided. So the real test should be to see which they choose when given a choice.
11
Fruit flies eat yeast.
12
The possibility that the differences were a result of residual pesticides in the fruit is addressed in the article. The experiment was devised after the student's previous experiments revealed differing levels of nutrients in the two types of produce. She settled on the fruit fly study as a means of testing health effects.

If further experiments demonstrate that some portion of the difference in health outcomes is in fact a result of residual pesticide, that would itself be an interesting finding. So all the people on this thread mocking Ms. Chhabra for this study? Are being dumb.

It appears this kid is following the scientific method perfectly -- posing a clear question, devising an experiment to test it, and then building on the results by asking further questions and performing more experiments.
13
@10: "Organic also tastes better. "

This statement is meaningless (and possibly self-deluding.) Farms that use heirloom strains have a tastier product. Huge "organic" congloms that raise things out of season can have tasteless product. Nothing about organic makes an item necessarily tastier. Plenty of organic product ~can~ taste better, but it's the concern and interest in final product that does this, not the use of "organic" pest control.
14
Another strike against organic.
15
@11 yeah, the food I buy may be destroying the planet, my health, and my children's chances of making babies someday, but at least my house isn't filled with all those damn fruit flies.
16
nuts. @15 - sirkowski, not @11.
17
So, variety really is the spice of life, right, @13?
18
@12: "It appears this kid is following the scientific method perfectly -- posing a clear question, devising an experiment to test it, and then building on the results by asking further questions and performing more experiments.

...

So all the people on this thread mocking Ms. Chhabra for this study? Are being dumb."

It's a flawed study from the get-go. Perfect for science fairs, and there are certainly worse published and peer-reviewed papers, but we're not "dumb" for hoping for better research (yes, even from a child.)

If "organic" was ignored and more specific qualifiers were used, I'd be more interested.
19
I was referring to all the flippant "newsflash: pesticides hurt insects" posts. Because that was addressed in the article.

Your own objections seem to fall more into "sneering internet know-it-all" category. Yes, you're right, science fairs aren't peer-reviewed scientific journals. She should be ashamed of herself.
20
Tastes better was completely subjective. But side by side, to me they do.
21
Two possible major concerns with the research:
1. No statistical adjustment for multiple comparisons.
2. Possible ad hoc manner of analyses.*

*In the body of the paper it is stated that research was originally conducted only on banana (which showed no statistically significant differences between organic and conventional). Afterwards the research was expanded to

As an aside, it seems many of the commenters are not aware that organic does not mean pesticide free. Organic produce is produced with... organic pesticides. Shit can still kill you.
22
@19: "Your own objections seem to fall more into "sneering internet know-it-all" category. Yes, you're right, science fairs aren't peer-reviewed scientific journals. She should be ashamed of herself."

My objections have more to do with the overbroad category of "organic", I'm not internet-beating-up on a kid for crying out loud. I'm glad she's getting her experience and working with great people. Getting published will look great on her college application.
23
Here's the link to the article:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%…
24
You don't see this very often on published articles:

Funding: These authors have no support or funding to report.


25
@18 - If you think the world deserves better-designed research (by children, no less!), then show me what you've done. I want to see your publications. I want to know how you do your research.I want to visit your lab. If you've ever actually designed and executed an experiment as perfect as you demand from this child, please do share. I'd love to know how you've mastered the scientific method.
26
@15 Millions of people would have died without GMO wheat. The only people organic food is feeding is the fauxhemian bourgeois.
27
@26 I don't mean to insult, but you are frighteningly naive. In 2008 a UN report on the future of agriculture by 400 leading international scientists found no evidence that genetic modification of crops increases yields. The report warned that genetic modification in fact hurts poor farmers, because the patents attached to genetically modified crops are expensive and stop farmers from saving seeds, which they have done for generations.

Additionally, most genetically modified crops are designed to be herbicide-resistant (roundup ready) not designed to increase yield.

And furthermore, wheat is wind pollinated. That's very bad because we do not know all of the potential harm that genetically modified pollen might do when introduced to wild wheats and other grasses. Possibly the most scary impact is sterility of wild species. With wind pollinated GM plants grown outdoors, you cannot control where the genes will end up.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.