In their “Debunkary” section, io9 follows along NPR‘s footsteps and posts an article about how ORGANIC FOODS ARE NOT MORE NUTRITIOUS!! [ that’s me shouting to present my sarcastic shock and awe ]. They even claim that “A recent study suggests the $27 billion organic food industry is based on a myth.“
OK, ok. I get it. They need a shock headline to get people to click onto their page, see the Ads, click on Ads, make money, blah, blah, blah, etc.
But come on…I’m getting the feeling that these “bloggers” are getting paid by Monsanto.
In the article, they say [emphasis mine]:
But what the researchers did discover was that lower pesticide levels could be detected among children who ate organic foods compared to those on conventional diets. The researchers found that organic produce is 30% less likely to be contaminated with pesticides than conventional fruits and vegetables — but they cautioned that the differences in biomarkers and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults were not “clinically meaningful.”
But earlier in the article, they note [again emphasis mine]:
It’s important to note that, for the clinical trials, the researchers did not look into any long-term studies of health outcomes of people eating organic versus conventionally produced foods. At most, the duration of the trials ranged from two days to two years.
Trials that only ranged from two days to two years! What I would like to know, what none of the articles mention, is how many people took part in the studies. For all we know, it could have been 240 studies, with only two people to each study for a total of 480 test subjects – a low number to garner an meaningful data from.
Here’s your FUD for the day – courtesy of NPR no less – Why Organic Food May Not Be Healthier For You
Yes, organics is a $29 billion dollar industry, and still growing. Something is pulling us toward those organic veggies that are grown without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.
But if you’re thinking that organic produce will help you stay healthier, a new finding may come as a surprise. A new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine finds scant evidence of health benefits from organic foods.
Come on NPR – what a misleading title.
As you might expect, there was less pesticide contamination on organic produce. But does that matter? The authors of the new study say probably not. They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.
What kind of nonsense is that? It probably takes about 10 years for the pesticides accumulating in our body to show any effects. At which point it might be too late. Organic Food is waaay healthier. No doubt. You, NPR, can have your federally set limit on allowable pesticide residue. I will do without it. I can’t control what’s in the air I breath, but I can control what I put into my body.
So what happens when you dump radioactive toxic water into the ocean? The fishes become radioactive! And how do you get people to eat radioactive fish? Set a standard that says how much radiation in fish is OK!
Which is what Japan is doing:
The move came after the health ministry reported that fish caught off Ibaraki prefecture — which is about halfway between the plant and Tokyo — contained levels of radioactive iodine that exceeded the new legal limit. Cesium was also found just below the limit. The fish were caught Friday, before the safety limit was announced Tuesday.
Please. No level of radio active material inside the body is safe. The TEPCO folks are saying the radiation in the water will dissipate. What they don’t tell you is that the little radioactive fish you just ate will continue to give off radiation inside your body.
LiveScience has some really important tips for dieters IMHO. I’ve lost about 40 lbs since last year and have had no trouble keeping it off following these rules…
Here comes the corn industry again:
The Corn Refiners Association, which represents firms that make the syrup, has been trying to improve the image of the much maligned sweetener with ad campaigns promoting it as a natural ingredient made from corn. Now, the group has petitioned the United States Food and Drug Administration to start calling the ingredient “corn sugar,” arguing that a name change is the only way to clear up consumer confusion about the product.
Read more –> A New Name for High-Fructose Corn Syrup – NYTimes.com.
Under Sen. Ron Wyden’s the proposed Senate Bill, people who refuse to buy health insurance will be fined over $1000/year.
I’m sorry, I didn’t vote Democratic so they can fine me for not choosing health insurance. As I have said before, I shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for folks who choose to eat fast food three times a day. The cost for these programs will only go up. And they continue to take more money out of my paycheck to pay for these programs. Yet my pay isn’t going up that fast, which means I’m making less.
According to research done by the Kaiser Family Foundation, National Public Radio, and the Harvard School of Health, health insurance costs individuals an average of $4,800 annually. The cost for families to get insurance is even higher, at around $12,000 annually. These kinds of costs would push many people over the edge financially. How does Sen. Wyden propose that we pay for more people who will be unable to afford food, housing and education if they have to pay for health insurance? Effective health-care reform would be better accomplished by other means. Sen. Wyden’s own proposals to switch America from employer-based to individual health-insurance markets, for example, would do a great amount of good by encouraging competition and innovation without making life harder for the people having the most difficult time getting insurance.
Why not have individual health insurance markets? I can choose my car insurance, life insurance, cell phone provider, internet provider, cable tv provider, etc? Competition would create lower prices.
In Europe, where health care is free and state run, many experts say we may be going down a slippery slope.
“What we can be proud of in Europe is the ground rules, that everyone has the right to health care,” said Jose Martin-Moreno, a health expert at the University of Valencia in Spain. “But the implementation has been difficult and one size does not fit all.”
Critics say the policies are often driven more by politics than science. Last week, Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised that patients unable to see cancer experts within two weeks would get cash to pay for private care. Brown had previously argued against paying for private providers and some say the reversal may be a gimmick to boost his sagging popularity.
“I would warn Americans that once the government gets its nose into health care, it’s hard to stop the dangerous effects later,” said Valentin Petkantchin, of the Institut Economique Molinari in France. He said many private providers have been pushed out, forcing a dependence on an overstretched public system.
The legislation bandied about by the Dems will require, -force-, people to buy in health insurance.
Senior House Democrats drafting health care legislation are considering slapping an unspecified financial penalty on anyone who refuses to purchase affordable health insurance, a key committee chairman said Monday.
Plus, they want to add more taxes in order to pay for the healthcare they want to provide to the uninsured:
I’m all for providing care to people who need it, and can’t afford it, but there has to be a better way than by forcing the rest of us into buying it, and taxing us on top of that.