Posted on 05/18/2022 6:47:44 AM PDT by SJackson
As a result, poor parents feel guilty if"/>
"Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out" @Horowitz39, David Horowitz
The science just doesn't add up.Wed May 18, 2022
Activists have convinced Americans that "organic" food is better — healthier, better-tasting, life-extending.
As a result, poor parents feel guilty if they can't afford to pay $7 for organic eggs.
This misinformation is spread by people like Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association. She says organic food is clearly better: "The nutrition is a huge difference."
But it isn't. Studies find little difference.
If you still want to pay more for what's called "organic," that's your right. But what's outrageous is that this group of scientifically illiterate people convinced the government to force all of us to pay more.
Congress has ruled that GMOs (genetically modified food) must be labeled. Busybodies from both parties supported the idea.
Politicians like Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said, "It doesn't cost any more. This idea that ... this ... will raise food prices is ridiculous."
It's McGovern who is ridiculous. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says the GMO labelling will cost from $598 million to $3.5 billion.
"But the public wants GMOs labelled," say advocates. "Surveys show that."
Of course they do.
Ask people if DNA in food should be labelled, and most say yes. Yet DNA is in everything.
Polling is a stupid way to make policy.
The idea of modifying a plant's DNA may sound creepy, but people have cross-bred plants and animals for years.
"The corn we have today, there's nothing natural about that," I say to Baden-Mayer in my new video. "What native people ate, we'd find inedible."
Baden-Mayer laughs at that.
"You're saying indigenous corn is somehow inferior because you've seen it dried and it has tiny little kernels?" she asks.
"Yes," I reply. I've tried to eat it.
"That's another myth of the industry," she responds. "People like you believe that."
I sure do. I also believe it's good that genetic modification lets us alter nature more precisely, gene by gene. That's better and safer than the more haphazard crossbreeding that's been done for years.
This new precision lets scientists make plants that save lives.
In poor parts of the world, half a million people per year go blind due to lack of vitamin A in their diets. Many die.
Scientists have created a new genetically modified rice that contains vitamin A. This "golden rice" could save those people.
"I've heard of golden rice," sneers Baden-Mayer. "That was a project that all of the chemical companies invested in."
I sneer right back.
"Golden rice hasn't succeeded partly because scientifically ignorant fools like you convinced the world that it's harmful!"
"I knew at a certain point you would resort to name-calling," she replies. "But it doesn't change the science on this."
Sadly, in some countries, people listen to advocates like her and believe that Americans want to poison them. One group of GMO fearful protesters invaded a golden rice field in the Philippines, ripping up all the plants.
Thousands will die or go blind, needlessly, because the organic cult spreads misinformation.
At least educated skeptics now understand that they were wrong about GMOs.
The New York Times points out that many "quietly walked back their opposition" to GMOs. "The science is clear," says a former opponent in The Wall Street Journal. "They're perfectly safe."
The Philippines recently approved golden rice.
But the hardcore zealots will never be convinced.
Baden-Mayer claims GMOs cause cancer.
"We're using more GMOs than ever," I point out. "There's less cancer now. Life spans keep increasing."
"Compared to when, 100 years ago?" she scoffs.
Absolutely, yes. We live about 25 years longer than Americans did 100 years ago. Even compared to 10 or 20 years ago, we live longer.
The National Academy of Sciences calls GMOs safe. So do the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA.
But no amount of science will convince people like Baden-Mayer. "The GMO issue just has not been investigated enough," she says.
Organic promoters are wrong on the costs and wrong on the science.
Sadly, they've won the battle of public opinion.
I tend to eat inorganic food, apparently.
I prefer that my corn is not.
Is this an unscientific concern?
Stossel fails to ask the only pertinent question - WHY is the food being genetically modified?
Answer - Most grain crops are being modified to resist being killed off by glyphosphate (Round Up), so they can spray the ever loving snot out of the fields to kill off the weeds.
Residues from that are damaging to the intestinal lining, and might cause cancer. But not to worry, EPA scientists assure us that the although 59% of crops tested are positive for residue, the levels are harmless. Maybe even as harmless as the COVID vaccines. The Government would never lie to you, would they?
https://www.fda.gov/food/pesticides/questions-and-answers-glyphosate
If you haven’t tested the hypothesis, or at least studied tests by others, then by definition, yes. Doesn’t by itself make it unreasonable, but it is unscientific.
I’ve studied tests by others, but thanks for playing.
Bare dirt monocrop
Big AG also got a lot of organic rules changed because their people rotate in and out of the USDA. Just like Monsanto got GMO approved by rotating people in and out of the FDA. All fedgov agencies are like that.
After COVID, does it make anyone feel better that these associations and agencies approve of something? The FDA just yesterday approved of booster jabs for 5-11 year old kids.
Hmm. Why do they want to kill off the weeds? Perhaps to increase the crop yield per acre? To feed more people? To increase efficiency of the farm/field? This is a good thing. More food from the same crop means less hunger and more people being fed at lower prices.
“But the public wants GMOs labelled,” say advocates. “Surveys show that.”
I’d prefer to know what I’m buying, before I buy it, and getting what I planned to get, after I bought it. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
Sure, big AG feeds more ppl, but if the residue remains, you could posit that big AG poisons more ppl too.
You don’t wash your fruits/vegetables as recommended?
When my son was a kid he once asked me about the organic products in the grocery store. I told him it was the same as the regular stuff except it just contained more rat feces and insect fragments and cost more.
I wonder how many organic food zealots sneer at creation science. Yet the belief that what’s “natural” is automatically best to eat smacks of exactly that - creationism The food unaltered by man in the most perfect for man to consume.
There’s no reason why a vegetable, if its goal is to optimize itself for survival and reproducibility, as Darwin teaches, is simultaneously going to make itself as most perfectly agreeable to humans, for their own consumption, as possible.
You can’t debate a greenie. It is like debating religion.
Organic eating is not about more or better nutrients. That’s a straw man, one promulgated by both sides of the argument.
It’s about not consuming all the chemicals they use on commercial crops...from roundup to pesticides etc.
Unaddressed by the article.
The hardest job in the world is being a farmer...
Those that eat the most refuse to see that.
Any food purchased anywhere else, there is no way to “know” how or from what seed stock it was grown.
Anything industrially processed is poison. Anything commercially labeled is bullchit.
Anything shipped is aged beyond all belief.
I grow pretty much all our own food. The wife processes it all. We KNOW what we eat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.