This guy bought and drank the inorganic coolade:
Can anyone really believe this blather? Amazing! How can intelligent people be so stupid?“What makes something good or bad for you is the actual content of the product. And being organic isn't anything special. Organic is simply a new way to charge people more for lower quality. But people are always big on branding, especially if it costs more money and makes their lives worse. And so we have now branded some foods as organic and all others somehow aren't organic.
.We have spent thousands of years developing technology and finding ways to harvest and grow products but for some reason we don't like technology when it comes to food. We are okay with technology enhancing our communication and our education but when it comes to technology enhancing our food we don't want any part of that. We would rather eat food the old way.
.I take nutrition very seriously and I'm always looking for healthy food. Here's a tip: organic food isn't that healthy. Most organic food often times tastes worse and have less nutritional value. Having somebody specialize in making lots of food isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes local farmers aren't as good as large farmers who specialize in production. The large farmer got big because people liked their products.
.Don't believe the hype. Organic is just another word that gets people excited for no reason.”
September 5, 2012
"Tomorrow, the baby is going to get an extra dollop of pesticide-sprayed carrots."
Image: Conflict of interest? Strange that Stanford University is partnered with agricultural giant Cargill and just so happens to come out with a study that suggests organic food is no better than its big-agri competition. According to Stanford University, Cargill HAS DONATED AT LEAST 5 MILLION DOLLARS for the creation of a Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). Cargill's website has a page describing its partnership with Stanford which can be found here. Cargill and many others also are listed as donors by Standford University in their 2011 Annual Report (page 38, .pdf).
Whether or not readers of the Telegraph will put their own health and that of their children at risk for the sake of protecting big-agri's bottom line and the faltering paradigm that big-agri products are safe for human consumption simply because Harry Wallop thinks it’s good to feed his baby with pesticide-sprayed carrots remains to be seen.
The London Telegraph, when not fabricating news to support England's latest imperial adventures overseas, is at the forefront of many of the largest corporate-financier funded lobbying campaigns. Recently, someone has splurged, and splurged big on anti-organic food lobbying built atop a suspect Stanford study.
A FLAWED "STUDY"
When entire news cycles are dominated by headlines built on a single university study, with editorials attempting to hammer in big-agri talking points, a lobbying effort is clearly afoot.
This most recent anti-organic food campaign began with a Stanford study (and here) out of its Center for Health Policy (a subsidiary of Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies), examining the nutritional value of organic food versus non-organic.
Indeed, the nutritional value would be similar ~ but the entire point of eating organic is not because of vastly superior nutritional value, but to avoid the "extras" included with products from big-agri corporations.
So why the strawman argument?
A CORPORATE-FUNDED "STUDY"
The Stanford Center for Health Policy states the following on its own website:
"The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) relies on support from its friends, as well as from national and international foundations and corporations, for the funding of the Institute's research, teaching and outreach activities."
Image: From Stanford Center for Health Policy's own website it is admitted that " national and international foundations and corporations" fund its research and "outreach activities." This confirms the suspicions of an increasingly aware public who saw the "study" as biased, contradictory of both logic and ethics, and the result of insidious corporate-funding.
Image: From Stanford's 2011 FSI Annual Report (page 38, .pdf), of which the Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary, is funded by Cargill, the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation (heavily invested in both Cargill and big-agri giant Monsanto), and a myriad of other Fortune 500 corporate-financier special interests. The report at face value is throwaway propaganda, but its funding reveals a more insidious, coordinated effort to manipulate public perception, stretching across academia, mass media, government, and big business.
WHAT TO DO?
Quite obviously, one should continue eating organic.
We should also redouble our efforts at supporting local farmers, attending and contributing to local farmers markets, and investigating the possibility of growing, if only a small percentage, our own herbs, fruits, and vegetables.
Freedom and self-determination come from economic independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency.