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.
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
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.
“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.
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.