Thursday, November 17, 2005
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN......
In the Tuesday November 8, 2005 addition of the News Gazette the Living section featured a story about parents serving only organic food products to their chirrun. It was written by Libby Quaid of the Associated Press and an unwitting(?)PR hack for the organic food industry. Evidently, if you see a roach in your house, you don't need to pick up the can of Raid. You can simply scoop up the baby and get it to belch on the bug and that should do the trick because you see your baby may be.....TOXIC!!!!! After all, new and improved government research(and we know the guvment is always right...) did a study of children whose diets were changed to a strictly organic diet. It showed pesticide levels would drop dramatically in these kids until they returned to a conventional food diet.
Not one word in the article about what the levels of pesticide were in the before and after test. Nor was it revealed what would be considered an unsafe level. What was revealed is that they just don't really know what impact pesticides have on children at all. Ahhh, the perfect guvment study, supposedly alarming results from hysterical authority figures shouted from the mountaintops by a hardly unbiased organic food industry when, quite honestly, no one knows what the hell it even means. Links to the story are provided for the Environmental Working Group and the Organic Trade Association.
activistcash.com(great website!) discloses what these two organizations are really up to:
EWG’s game plan is simple. It releases “scientific” analyses designed to make the public (especially parents) worry tremendously about tiny amounts of pesticide exposure from fruits and vegetables. Throwing around phrases like “cancer risk” and “nervous system toxicity” attracts press coverage and lends EWG the veneer of scientific respectability. The “Environmental Worrying Group,” as some commentators have dubbed the organization, then goes on to recommend that Americans “buy as much organic food as possible” in order to avoid the supposed health risks associated with these pesky chemicals.
The Organic Trade Association (OTA) is that special interest. Organic food marketers made over $8 billion in North America last year — $26 billion worldwide. Despite the image of organic food as an “alternative” hippie-culture lifestyle choice, this is big business. OTA represents more organic business than any other trade group. EWG’s pronouncements about the supposed health advantages of eating organic foods are frequently seconded in OTA press releases. An analysis of online databases reveals over 100 news stories in which OTA president Katherine DiMatteo is quoted alongside one EWG spokesperson or another. More than half of the press conferences held by EWG since 1993 featured DiMatteo or another OTA spokesperson right alongside EWG’s “scientific” analysts.
Americans have a remarkable wealth of food choices in the 21st century. Organic produce is just as valid a choice to make as any other, but Americans ought to know what they’re paying extra for. This is where the Environmental Working Group purposely muddies the waters. Anyone leaning toward taking EWG’s reports seriously should consider this August 2000 analysis from New York Times columnist John Tierney:
“Environmentalists routinely advise people to buy organic food and issue estimates on how many Americans are being poisoned by tiny amounts of pesticides. Yet the only victims that can be readily identified are rodents that were fed enormous doses… Scientists can name Americans poisoned by organic lettuce. They may not have the data to know if the organic variety is riskier than conventional lettuce, but they know it’s foolish to assume natural is better. E.coli are natural too.”
And so it goes, these people who are so "concerned" about the health of the young 'uns are doing so to make a buck! Other "concerned" citizens in the article participating in the demonization of conventional vegetables include: Dr Alan Greene(website and books promoting organic food use), Chenseng Lu(who led the study), and Jody Villecco(nutritionist and traveling lecturer for Whole Foods) who can show you how to shave a peeled banana with a knife to make mush, ergo, baby food. I wonder how much money she gets paid for that enlightening demonstration! In fact, I wonder just how much money all this hoopla costs. Of course, the AP reporterette did not even bother to offer any other side to the story or any other point of view. She cast her lot solely with the "earthy crunchies" in this puff piece.
Of course, the article would not be complete if it did not make mention of a mother of four boys in Boulder Colorado who haughtily denies her young lads Oreos. Yep, I look for at least one of them to turn up on the top of a clock tower someday shooting down at the cruel world that denied him his double stuffs. I'm sure I could find a "government funded" study to investigate this possibility. After all, results don't matter just the hype generated.....
Not one word in the article about what the levels of pesticide were in the before and after test. Nor was it revealed what would be considered an unsafe level. What was revealed is that they just don't really know what impact pesticides have on children at all. Ahhh, the perfect guvment study, supposedly alarming results from hysterical authority figures shouted from the mountaintops by a hardly unbiased organic food industry when, quite honestly, no one knows what the hell it even means. Links to the story are provided for the Environmental Working Group and the Organic Trade Association.
activistcash.com(great website!) discloses what these two organizations are really up to:
EWG’s game plan is simple. It releases “scientific” analyses designed to make the public (especially parents) worry tremendously about tiny amounts of pesticide exposure from fruits and vegetables. Throwing around phrases like “cancer risk” and “nervous system toxicity” attracts press coverage and lends EWG the veneer of scientific respectability. The “Environmental Worrying Group,” as some commentators have dubbed the organization, then goes on to recommend that Americans “buy as much organic food as possible” in order to avoid the supposed health risks associated with these pesky chemicals.
The Organic Trade Association (OTA) is that special interest. Organic food marketers made over $8 billion in North America last year — $26 billion worldwide. Despite the image of organic food as an “alternative” hippie-culture lifestyle choice, this is big business. OTA represents more organic business than any other trade group. EWG’s pronouncements about the supposed health advantages of eating organic foods are frequently seconded in OTA press releases. An analysis of online databases reveals over 100 news stories in which OTA president Katherine DiMatteo is quoted alongside one EWG spokesperson or another. More than half of the press conferences held by EWG since 1993 featured DiMatteo or another OTA spokesperson right alongside EWG’s “scientific” analysts.
Americans have a remarkable wealth of food choices in the 21st century. Organic produce is just as valid a choice to make as any other, but Americans ought to know what they’re paying extra for. This is where the Environmental Working Group purposely muddies the waters. Anyone leaning toward taking EWG’s reports seriously should consider this August 2000 analysis from New York Times columnist John Tierney:
“Environmentalists routinely advise people to buy organic food and issue estimates on how many Americans are being poisoned by tiny amounts of pesticides. Yet the only victims that can be readily identified are rodents that were fed enormous doses… Scientists can name Americans poisoned by organic lettuce. They may not have the data to know if the organic variety is riskier than conventional lettuce, but they know it’s foolish to assume natural is better. E.coli are natural too.”
And so it goes, these people who are so "concerned" about the health of the young 'uns are doing so to make a buck! Other "concerned" citizens in the article participating in the demonization of conventional vegetables include: Dr Alan Greene(website and books promoting organic food use), Chenseng Lu(who led the study), and Jody Villecco(nutritionist and traveling lecturer for Whole Foods) who can show you how to shave a peeled banana with a knife to make mush, ergo, baby food. I wonder how much money she gets paid for that enlightening demonstration! In fact, I wonder just how much money all this hoopla costs. Of course, the AP reporterette did not even bother to offer any other side to the story or any other point of view. She cast her lot solely with the "earthy crunchies" in this puff piece.
Of course, the article would not be complete if it did not make mention of a mother of four boys in Boulder Colorado who haughtily denies her young lads Oreos. Yep, I look for at least one of them to turn up on the top of a clock tower someday shooting down at the cruel world that denied him his double stuffs. I'm sure I could find a "government funded" study to investigate this possibility. After all, results don't matter just the hype generated.....
