LAURA KNIGHT-JADCZYK AND JOE QUINN
Since the 9/11 attacks, no book has provided a satisfactory answer as to WHY the attacks occurred and who was ultimately responsible for carrying them out - until now.
Brix testing is a better predictor of food value than whether something is "Organic" or not. High Brix
foods aren't palatable to insects, meaning that Insecticide use is minimized. Organic foods with low
Brix numbers need pesticides too. Pesticides that are allowed by Organic regulations are used heavily.
Present Organic regulations favor big business, not food quality.
The very study is framed AS IF, food's nutritiousness is the PRIMARY issue.
ORGANIC is about healthier choices, sometimes that are both more nutritious, visually pleasing ( part of good eating is taste and appearance ), succulent, and cause far fewer devastating overall impacts to society ( externalized "costs" usually ignored ).
As a very long term consumer of organic produce, the 'elephant in the room' is the FACT that ANY pesticide / insecticide residue is harmful as a neurotoxin -- literally a WMD -- that is deceitfully labeled as an inconsequential addition to food.
Brain damage, compromised immune systems, cancers, respiratory diseases, skin problems like clor-achne -- think about "Agent Orange" -- this neurotoxin stuff really kills us in immeasurable and indeterminant ways ( beside the ways we know it clearly does ).
These severely debilitating poisons NEED to BE SEEN, as far less than a necessary addition, to insure productivity and solve world hunger. They only maximize short term corporate profits, while hiding huge sets of interdependent synergistic consequences and deadly costs, to both individuals and society.
The good and well balanced science is very clear, that intrinsic pesticides and insecticides that come organically into ALL foods, as natural protective mechanisms, are intrinsically harmful.
Science magazine covered this poignant issue, in a humorous manner many decades ago, with a cover repeating EAT DIE EAT DIE, in huge bold letters. We either eat food ( even at it's best ) and inevitably die, or we don't eat and die even sooner - we either eat a diversified mix of many types of foods, and cut the toxic eyes ( spouts ) out of our potatoes -- or we choose a less healthy concentration of assaults and damages.
Life is ALWAYS intrinsically self-adapting and evolving -- so ALL food causes some harm, and our bodies protect us as well as they can, but our food choices do have consequences ( as the article clearly advocates that truth ).
Radioactivity issues, water safety and purification, rain water overloading and commingling with raw sewage -- these are parallel issues of human safety and additional vectors from which toxins enter our bodies, that we must then either fight or succumb to.
Why doesn't the "Cure for Cancer" include the best of medical science, alternate treatments AND the inevitable elimination ( and or amelioration ) of the synergistically NEGATIVE superposition of thousands of toxic exposures that too often drive our cells to go crazy ?
What about promulgating diets ( and food preparation ) rich in antioxidants ( like organic foods ) that mitigate some of the damage, before it occurs ?
Comment: For more informative data on the 'Organic Food Debate' read the following articles:
Stanford Scientists Shockingly Reckless on Health Risk and Organics
Cargill and Others Behind anti-Organic "Stanford Study"
Thinking Outside the Processed Foods Box: Health and Safety Advantages of Organic Food
In Defense of Organic
Organic Vs. Conventional: Have You Been Robbed?
Organic Food: Cutting Through The Confusion
State of Science Review 'New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods'
Organic Versus Conventional Food: UK Report Flawed