[mixologic]

I would think we would be better at spotting sock puppets. "Expert reaction?" More like paid schill: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/funding/

Syngenta? Croplife? BASF?

[pg890432]

Well, that list also includes the University of Newcastle (the same university that published the aforementioned study).

In addition to the University of Newcastle as a funder, there are also these:

University College London, University of Bristol, University of Cambridge, University of East Anglia, University of Oxford

And these -

Institute of Mental Health, Institute of Physics (IOP), Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), Institution of Civil Engineers, Institution of Engineering and Technology (The IET), Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE)

And many more like -

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), National Institute for Health Research, National Nuclear Laboratory, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Nature

Are they all shills too?

[jqm]

I can just about guarantee you those companies couldn't care less about a few 10 thousands of people eating a little organic food. It's not a threat to them and they simply don't care enough to put out sock puppets. This lack of caring actually gives the new hippie-science disregarding (or whatever you want to call it) authors like Micheal Pollan more air time because nobody calls them on it when they get out of bounds of good science. Nobody writes sensational books about the over-hype and under evidence of the benefits of organic farming nor the dangers of un-regulated and un-inspected food production.

The amount of anti-science junk regarding food production I see posted on HN is stunning given that this is supposed to be a group of intelligent rational people.

[pyre]

All you've basically done is attempted to marginalize a group of people ("couldn't care less about a few 10 thousands of people"), while calling them out for being 'wrong.' In addition, you've attempted to call out HN as being the negation of a "group of intelligent rational people" because they don't share your views. On top of that, you've in no way told us why all of these people are wrong, other than "the people that know the real truth have better things to do than explain it to you."

[jqm]

I haven't called anyone out for being wrong (except the original poster on his shill suspicion, I believe he is unreasonable and almost certainly wrong on that count).

All I'm saying is that it is unlikely these companies care enough about a small niche market that doesn't really doesn't pose a danger to their business nor impact them enough to post shills.

As for unscientific views on the topic of food production... It's not a matter of "wrong". It's a matter of acceptance of science. The rejection of science in favor of unreasonable conspiracy theories and anti-scientific pop authors by this many presumably intelligent members of a "tech" site is surprising and a bit disturbing.