HuckleB
HuckleB's JournalND Confession, Part II: The Accreditation of Naturopathic “Medical” Education
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/nd-confession-part-ii-the-accreditation-of-naturopathic-medical-education/Another fine piece at SBM, by the author of The Naturopathic Diaries.
It comes down ugly, unethical marketing practices by organic producers.
They decided to demonize GMOs in order to scare people to their products. Now they face competition from "Non-GMO" companies, which often means they use older plants that utilize far more toxic herbicides and pesticides.
See what Chipotle's silliness really means for the environment here: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/
It's really just one big marketing scam.
The debate over genetically modified organisms is a great case study in how to think critically.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/08/critical_thinking_lessons_for_the_anti_gmo_movement_generalizations_evidence.html"It’s gut-check time for the anti-GMO movement. In the past couple of years, some of the country’s best science journalists—Amy Harmon, Nathanael Johnson, Keith Kloor, Michael Specter, and others—have shredded many of the movement’s claims and arguments. Three weeks ago Slate poked more holes in the case for banning or labeling genetically engineered food.
some GMO critics, to their credit, seem open to reforming the movement. Gary Hirshberg, the chairman of Just Label It, has been pounded by GMO advocates for unscientific statements. But in his latest essay, Hirshberg shows tentative signs of turning away from allegations that GMOs per se are dangerous. He’s trying to refocus the debate on transparency, herbicidal applications, and long-term monitoring.
Others are clinging to the same old discredited attacks on GMO safety. Chief among them is Claire Robinson, an editor at GMWatch and researcher for Earth Open Source. Two years ago, when Johnson investigated issues on both sides of the GMO debate for a series in Grist, Robinson accused him of parroting industry spin. Now Robinson has written a three-part series leveling a similar charge at Slate. Her arguments fail, but they do so in an instructive way. By exploring these common anti-GMO errors, you can learn a lot about how to think critically, and not just about GMOs. Here are some of the lessons.
No. 1: Don’t rely on authority. Robinson says you shouldn’t settle for vague assurances from scientific organizations. I agree. That’s why I drilled down into four case studies to look at specific evidence. The evidence, not the assurances, is what debunks the arguments against these GMOs. So when Robinson tries to drown out that evidence with her own appeals to authority, citing bogus “science-related organizations” such as the American Academy of Environmental Medicine—a quack group dressed up as an association of scholarly referees—don’t fall for the act.
..."
A fine follow-up by Saletan.
Why am I reminded of this? -- "The Lies that Whole Foods Tells"
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/the_lies_that_whole_foods_tells_108701.htmlThis professor put Gwyneth Paltrow’s health advice to the test. The truth is even worse ...
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/5/8548229/gwyneth-paltrow-health-advice"There are a few things we know for sure will make us healthy: exercise, don't smoke, eat a variety of whole foods — but not too much — and watch your alcohol intake and sun exposure. Yet every day, we are bombarded with messages from celebrity culture about things we must do to be healthier and more beautiful. They usually involve gimmicks like juicing and detoxing, a new "miracle supplement," shake, or body-firming exercise. Some advice is more extreme — such as Gwyneth Paltrow's suggestion that women steam their vaginas.
And sometimes, even when celebrities don't tell us what to do, we follow them anyway — going under the knife to achieve Kim Kardashian's bum or seeking out advice about a double mastectomy because Angelina Jolie had the operation.
No matter the form it takes, the message is clear: celebrities hold the secrets to health.
Or do they? Timothy Caulfield, author of the new book Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?, spent the past few years looking at the scientific literature and testing out insane celebrity health and beauty tips to better understand the impact famous folks have on us. Through a hilarious and introspective journey, the University of Alberta professor finds that not only are most celebrities wrong, but they also distract us from things that will actually make us healthy and happy.
..."
Just turn these people off, please.
Thank you!
Those are two of the common talking points.
Monsanto may be a corporate problem, but it's nowhere near as big as many other corporations. Also, it makes all types of seeds, including organic. The anti-GMO movement has worked to make it synonymous with GMOs, but that's simply not honest.
Knowing the seed development technology tells you nothing about the food in question. No other seed development technology is labeled, including Mutation Bred Organisms. The reality is that organic companies and the "non-GMO" followers have simply used GMO as a fear mongering point to market their foods and sell them at higher prices. We have choses to get angry at the wrong people on the GMO issue. It's really time to turn the tables if we are progressives who care about science, good information, food security, and the environment.
This covers some of the reasons labeling is not based in sound science.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/06/06/why-labeling-of-gmos-is-actually-bad-for-people-and-the-environment/
A piece that covers mutation breeding.
http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/atomic_gardening_ultimate_frankenfoods-91836
And a good piece that covers some of the issues with the anti-GMO movement.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/gmos-and-making-up-your-own-science/
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 35,773
