11 Things I Didn’t Expect From 2 Months of Researching Food.

(image credit: cropped from markus spiske)

Two months ago I started the What We Should Really Be Eating? series. In this series I relied on science to research food: from pesticides to GMOs to detox diets to organic vs. conventional, I pulled up my sleeves and one by one started researching each subject.

This was no easy feat: The average length of each article was more than 2000 words and each one took me a minimum of 2 days of research (aka 15+ hours).

I ended up learning a lot, not just about what we should really be eating, but about people too. Honestly, I didn’t expect what would happen.

So let’s get started…

11 Things I Didn’t Expect From 2 Months of Researching Food

1. I had no idea there was so much misinformation around. And I didn’t know that these misconceptions were also affecting me.

I was biased in favor of “natural.” I bought “organic,” religiously. I was checking labels and avoiding anything with the word “artificial” in it. I thought I was doing the right thing. I thought that natural = better. I thought that organic had indeed more to offer and was safer than conventional produce and dairy products.

The more I dug into the actual science, the more I found out that it was all hype and my “pro-natural” bias was unfounded. I realized I was looking into “non-natural” products the way people addressed IVF babies when In Vitro Fertilization was still new. They looked down on them because they were not conceived the “natural” way.


And don’t get me started on detoxing. I was actually sure that “detox diets” actually help the body detox. If not, then why would they be so popular? Well, I was in for a surprise. The detox diet industry is completely unfounded!

2. People will believe what they want to believe – often no matter what!

Even though I was biased, I was only mildly biased. I was not passionately biased in favor of “natural,” “organic,” etc, and dare I say, I didn’t even have an opinion on GMOs. And this is what allowed me to do research without having the need to confirm my beliefs. Because that’s exactly what happens when your belief becomes strong enough that gets you into the “fanatic” category.

bias against red hair
Say you are biased against redheads…(credit: Charlie Marshall)

Say you believe that red-heads cause bad luck. If you’re really passionate about it, no matter how many studies you encounter that show there’s no evidence that red-heads cause bad luck, you’ll keep insisting on this one time a red-head crossed the street right in front of you, and how you found a parking ticket on your car right after.

Plus, red-heads have been known for a while for their “qualities.” You’ll talk about how their hair was thought to be “a mark of a beastly sexual desire and moral degeneration” in the Middle Ages. Even as recently as 2013 “a fourteen-year-old boy had his right arm broken and his head stamped on by three men who attacked him just because he had red hair.” Visit wikipedia for more harassment cases against red-heads. (I thought this example would be completely fictional until I realized that it’s not!! Go figure.)

You’ll feel justified in knowing it’s not only you who are scared of red-heads. After all, if they were all so safe for the rest of us, why would they have acquired such a bad rep? There’s no smoke without fire.

But what about the scientific evidence you just saw? You’ll rationalize it: hey, even if there’s 0.0001% chance that red-heads do indeed cause bad luck, then why take the risk? Hence, you don’t make friends with red-heads and you avoid them whenever you see one on the street.

You also don’t talk to your red-haired colleagues and tell your kids to avoid any kids with red hair!

This may sound ridiculous, but it is actually happening with food. In many cases, ideology trumps evidence.

GMOs are the most prominent example. Even though there’s scientific consensus on their safety, and they have been studied for decades, mild opponents will ask for more studies while strong opponents will ask for them to be banned. Just look at the comments below my GMO article.

Let’s conduct more studies that redheads don’t indeed cause bad luck! Or better yet, let’s get rid of the red-heads, or isolate them in an island so they can’t contaminate the rest of us!

People believe what they want to believe.

3. Our critical thinking skills are (in many cases) pathetic.

If GMOs had nothing to hide, why would they oppose labeling?

We’re quick to judge but not thorough in reviewing our judgements. This is fine as it saves us time – we’re actually wired to think fast and making snap judgements (Nobel winner Daniel Kahneman wrote about this in his best-selling book Thinking Fast and Slow). But since we also have the ability to review our judgements, we have no excuse to cling to these premature judgements.

I honestly didn’t expect how bad our critical thinking skills are. Plausible arguments win the race when critical thinking is not present.

So the pro GMO-labeling argument I mentioned above sounds like it makes sense. It’s definitely plausible. If you hear it for the first time, you might be inclined to instantly nod your head and agree.

But if you use your critical thinking skills and spend a bit more time you may actually find holes in this argument. After all, scientists have found GMOs to be as safe as non-GMO food. So why would we need to label a production method?

I’m not going to get into the “right to know” bogus argument in this article. This was just mentioned as food for thought.

4. I was personally attacked.

monsanto shill
One of the “Monsanto Shill” attacks.

It’s one thing seeing it happen to others, and totally another to have it happen to you. I’ve been called a Monsanto shill, a dairy farming shill, and a Big Agriculture shill.

And just so you know, I didn’t even know the meaning of the word “shill.” I had to google it.

Such attacks are known as “ad hominem.” Ad hominem usually happens when the “other side” has no way to counteract your arguments. So they resort to ad hominem attacks to undermine your personality or integrity.

I was asked whether I was getting paid. I was called a liar. Heck, I even created a “shill logic” album on my Facebook page to showcase some of those gems. Feel free to indulge.

5. Natural = better is our default way of thinking, and we rarely if ever stop to examine whether it’s true.

Of course we don’t examine if it’s true – we don’t even recognize we are biased!

I earlier talked about how I was also biased in favor of “natural.” Cancer is natural. Tsunamis and earthquakes are natural. Carcinogen UV rays are natural.

Nature is not all roses and rainbows. Natural = better is just another belief that seems plausible.

I talked about Appeal to Nature here. Again: would you consider an IVF baby as less of a baby because it was not conceived the “natural” way?

6. (Some) people who liked me stopped liking me.

This was actually really sad for me. People who used to be fans unsubscribed and sent me rude e-mails full of disappointment. It’s really sad to see people who used to be supportive turn against you just because they don’t like “this new direction” (or in other words, they disagreed with science!).

7. But I made new friends!

This was one of the best perks from my decision to research food, and yes, totally unexpected! I stumbled across a community of other people who also support science and were very supportive of my efforts! I’m really, really excited and happy to have found them. Let me pay my dues:

Mommy, PhD – This is Alison Bernstein now part of the Fitness Reloaded Experts team (learn how to join here). You may remember her from writing on sunscreen, pesticides, and toxins for Fitness Reloaded. You’ll be seeing more of her. She’s studying Parkinson disease while raising her family of two kids.

The Credible Hulk. Let’s just say CH has a new fan – me! In his page you’ll find lots of science material. If there’s an even slightly nerdy streak in you, make sure you click like. If you’re like me, you’ll also be impressed by CH’s patience when discussing with totally irrational, or dare I say, stupid, people.

Biology Babe: BB is honest, brutally honest. She has quickly gathered a passionate community of people who want to get educated while at the same time enjoying some casual conversation, humor, and a bit of swearing. Like!

We love GMOs and Vaccines: Martin and Stephan are awesome! I studied their page to learn how to respond to ad hominem attacks and plainly stupid arguments without becoming uncivil. I love GMOs and vaccines too.

Kavin Senapathy: I believe Kavin was the first person I discovered when I was first getting started. She calls herself a science defender and that’s exactly who she is. She’s very knowledgable about GMOs so make sure you ask her if you have any questions.

The Skeptical Beard: Bobby addresses a variety of subjects without getting too technical. You don’t have to have a beard to like the page.

And more: Modern Science Mama, I hate Woo and Pseudoscience, March against Myths about Modification, Scientific Blogging, Charles Payet (dentist), It’s MomSense, Food Hunk, The Questionist, The Imaginarium, Do you even science, bro?, A Science Enthusiast, The Skeptical OBBanned by GMO Free USAStop the Anti-Science MovementInsufferable Intolerance Blog.

Also, special props to Thinking Nutrition for providing accurate nutrition information (haven’t connected with him yet, but I have to recommend his work.)

This list is not exclusive. There are more people out there giving science-backed advice. But that should be enough to get you started. Like them all, you’ll be glad you did!

8. It’s not all controversial: Scientific consensus actually exists!

When you’re exposed to a debate for a long time, you start thinking there’s no consensus and that the issue is divided. That’s what actually held me back for years. I didn’t ever talk about food because I found the issue confusing and had the attitude that “if the experts can’t agree, then how would I find the answers?”

By doing making this effort to research food, I realized that we consider a variety of actually settled topics as controversial. The science has come to a conclusion, it’s just that there are opposition forces so loud that give the perception that there is no real scientific conclusion and it’s all up in the air.

I can say the Earth is flat. I can be so loud and persistent I may make you doubt that the earth is indeed round. But that doesn’t mean I’m right. Nor does it mean that the matter is not already settled.

Are there still controversial issues out there? Yes, of course. But many topics that are often viewed as controversial (hint: GMOs) are actually not.

9. The health and fitness industry is full of misinformation, and many people realize this fact.

science-based health and fitness page
And the favorite comment award goes to…

A science-based health and fitness page? Love!

Soon after I started this series, I started getting congratulations along these lines.

I didn’t expect to get congratulations just because I’m in the health and fitness space. But then I started thinking about it.

The health and fitness industry is renowned for making unbacked, and sometimes even dangerous, claims. Was it a surprise that people were congratulating me?

I guess not, but since I hadn’t made the connection before I was really surprised for getting the applause. An awesome perk I must say!

10. I had no idea how underrepresented farmers felt

Completely and totally unexpected: farmers came to support my research!

At first it happened with the Organic Milk vs Regular Milk article. The article quickly gained more than 1000 shares and 200+ comments. Several farmers left comments thanking me for dispelling the organic hype.

Then I received more thanks for my GMO support and for writing about cattle welfare.

thanks from farmers
Thanks again to all the farmers!

I saw it clearly: farmers feel attacked. They feel they are not heard. They are tired of being attacked by people who have never even talked to a farmer but get their information “from the internet.”

From GMOs to pesticides to claims that Monsanto blackmails farmers to buy their seeds, who is at a better position to answer your questions if not farmers? Here’s who to follow:

Nurse Loves Farmer: I discovered Sara early on after the SciBabe recommended her. In her site she talks about parenting and farming. She often clears up GMO and pesticides myths.

The Farm Babe: More about GMOs and just every day farm life. Plus, Michelle’s commentary. Check her out!

Dairy Carrie: I cannot even start explaining how much I’ve learned about dairy from Dairy Carrie. The types of cow breeds, birth stories, cows “in heat,” just click “like,” you won’t be disappointed.

The Farmer’s Wifee: I’ve been following Krista for a while. Her love for cows just radiates. It’s everywhere. Like to feel the love!

Ask the Farmers: Farmers got fed up for being underrepresented and decided to end the misinformation. That’s how Ask The Farmers was born. Got questions about how your food was produced? Ask!

The Farmer’s Daughter: Amanda, she’s an attorney. And a farmer’s daughter too. Like to join #teamAg and fight misinformation with her.

The Foodie Farmer: If you’re a farmer who likes food, the choice here is obvious!

And there’s more: The Farmer’s Life, Farmer Tim, Farmer Bright, Confessions of a Farm Wife, Modern-day Farm ChickThe Hawaii Farmer’s Daughter.

Again, the list is not exclusive. So many awesome farmers out there!

11. People think themselves as “informed” while misunderstanding what science really is.

I noticed this again and again, esp. in the GMO article. People misunderstand their (mis)information as actual science and hence thinking they’re right.

When I’d ask for their scientific sources, they’d provide links to Youtube or some site on the web.

But these are not scientific sources, even if they talk about science.

For example, if I were to ask for a source, and you responded with a link from Fitness Reloaded, I’d ask again. Fitness Reloaded might talk about science, but it’s not a scientific journal. When asked for sources, don’t submit links to sites that talk about science, give links to the actual studies directly.

Okay so that was a big one. The second big misunderstanding is about study validity. Not all studies are created equal: sample size, methodology, journal published, peer-reviewed or not, double blind or not, repeatable or not, all those things make a difference in the credibility of a study.

Okay, I talked about my unexpected findings from my food research.

Now, let’s turn this back to you. What have you learned from the What We Should Really Be Eating? series? Was there anything you didn’t expect?

Oh, and if you haven’t yet liked the Fitness Reloaded page on Facebook, then please do it now!

Related Articles


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Great article. Have you seen Ask the Farmers and CommonGround?

    Feed Yard Foodie is great for leaning about how a feed lot works and the care given to the animals there.

    1. Yes, I’ve actually linked to Ask the Farmers. I’ve communicated with CommonGround before.

    2. I read that you were accused of being a Shill and so forth for GM and Monsanto….. Funny that… Because Cairenn Day and her friends did the same to me on the Monsanto page… I’m not anti GM i simply think the Jury is out…. And i question a company with a history of poisons like DDT and Agent Orange telling us that another product of theirs is safe like Round Up or GMO’s… Monsanto’s history on disclosure of danger is poor…. And what did i get for my posts… The same abuse you got, called a Shill, Troll, Fat, Stupid, dumb, Moron and more. And Cairenn Day is one of the worst… It had got so bad i reported several comments to facebook for deletion….. So what surprises me is the writer of this article… Almost claiming the abuse is one sided… Just check what Cairenn says on the Monsanto FB page…

    3. In the biased article… I read that you were accused of being a Shill and so forth for GM and Monsanto….. Funny that… Because Cairenn Day and her friends did the same to me on the Monsanto page… I’m not anti GM i simply think the Jury is out…. And i question a company with a history of poisons like DDT and Agent Orange telling us that another product of theirs is safe like Round Up or GMO’s… Monsanto’s history on disclosure of danger is poor…. And what did i get for my posts… The same abuse you got, called a Shill, Troll, Fat, Stupid, dumb, Moron and more. And Cairenn Day is one of the worst… It had got so bad i reported several comments to facebook for deletion….. So what surprises me is the writer of this article… Almost claiming the abuse is one sided… Just check what Cairenn says on the Monsanto FB page…

    4. Oh wow KT found be over here–he has been trolling the Monsanto page and insulting me and many other with his foolish shill accusations

      He tried to tell us that farmers could use lady bug to counter weeds instead of glyphosate

      We have shown him the information and he just denies it, He has chosen to be willful ignorant, what a shame

    5. Question is, why are YOU trolling the Montsanto page if you aren’t a shill?

      Thing about glyphosate is that it is not approved for human consumption, and it is known as a carcinogen. This poison is in the FOOD WE EAT because of people who sell their souls like you.


  2. Great article, agree with all points but #11 is so true. As a physicist, science educator and advocate I understand that there is a great deal of science illiteracy out there, and reading studies can be hard work, especially if the reader doesn’t have a science background, but still, it’s depressing some time.

  3. Number 11 always gets to me as a University student because not one person I have come across who argues passionately against science has had reputable sources… Why are people so close-minded regarding food? Perhaps it’s a biological safety mechanism? I think I’d prefer that idea over simple stubbornness at least.

    1. In my opinion it’s passion so strong that they have become fanatics. Once a fanatic it’s next to impossible to even try to understand if there’s an other side.

  4. What I learned is that we should all stop judging each other. Choose what is best for you and your family, and stop shaming everyone else about their choices. I have a science bent to me, too. I prefer data. I still don’t want to eat GMOs (not because of the GMO part, but because of the pesticides used in the processes – you can grow food with healthy soil without spraying anything on it at all!). I do vaccinate my kid (and my livestock). I don’t spray anything on my fields, and don’t buy food that has been sprayed. I don’t think we need to kill every weed and bug out there to get healthy food. Just ask the bees and the butterflies! I don’t eat bacon with nitrates or nitrites. I drink raw milk, from a local dairy where I see their practices first hand (and their weekly testing at a lab to ensure their milk is safe). I make my informed choices, and I grow my own food. If you don’t agree with my choices, that’s up to you, but why should you shame me or me shame you about it? Why can’t personal choices be personal? Why can’t I raise my family my way, and you raise yours your way? You can be pro-science and anti-gmo. You can be pro science and pro raw milk. You can be pro-science and anti-lab-created-chemicals to grow your food. You can be all these things. The pro-science movement always seems to come across trying to make those of us who choose differently seem like we are less intelligent. The pro-organic movement always comes across like anything that has been studied in a lab must be wrong. There actually is a middle ground.

    1. If you’re concerned about the pesticides, you should be pro-GMO. Many GMO crops are modified in such a way as to require less pesticide application than non-GMO. The pesticide argument is a specious one created by the anti-GMO crowd. As for personal choice in general, that’s great, except that ill-informed personal choice leads to larger consequences that affect more people than just you. Look at the anti-vaccination movement as a prime example. It would be great if we could just say “personal choice” and move on, but personal choice there leads to weakened herd immunity.

    2. Except that I grow food without glyphosate, or any other herbicide, pesticide, or fungicide. We won’t have food if we keep killing bees. These things are all linked, you don’t get to just pick ONE aspect of food. Just like the article talks about digging deeper, we need to do the same. So, I’m not against genetic modifications, EXCEPT that they were created to USE glyphosate in conjunction with them. I am anti-unnecessary chemicals. Read some Elliot Coleman, you’ll discover that neither GMO or non-GMO food require -cides if we take care of soil properly.
      And if you read my comment, I DO vaccinate. It’s frustrating as HELL that as a poultry producer (in a state where laws make it practically impossible to raise pastured chickens – what’s wrong with the birds living in a pasture under the sun, instead of an airplane hanger being pumped full of antibiotics – that’s SCIENCE therefore it’s GOOD FOR US) I get offended by the fact that both sides are NOT open to discussing the other side. I will not give my birds preemptive antibiotics. They aren’t SICK! Either are my plants, so I am not going to spray them. I don’t mind a few bugs, gives something for the toads to eat, oh, and my chickens, too. I want the toads to have plenty of food, they eat mosquitos, too. YAY!
      I am NOT an anti-vaxxer I did the research. Some I didn’t have to research. Polio? Hell no I don’t want my kid to get that. Chicken pox? Seemed innocuous to me, so I did some research on that one and eventually she got it. Goo in her eyes on the day she was born for an STD I had never had? Why? I was in the middle of a C-section and couldn’t protest that one, so I lost that fight (see that? C-Section, I tried, she didn’t fit, I was happy science was there to get her out of me safely). Gardasil? Likely not going to expose my daughter to that one, not enough data to prove to me that it is worth the risks. Jury is still out, they have 6 more years to figure that one out for me.
      However, we are talking about FOOD. Herd immunity? Because my choice to eat organic food and NOT spray my fields with glyphosate has anything to do with herd immunity? Tell that to the BEES, my friend. Tell it to the bees.

    3. The bees aren’t dying like the media reports, though (well, the european honeybees, anyway — our native bees are losing habitat at an alarming rate – not due to pesticides so much as current ag practices). They’ve rebounded since 2006. The bees are actually a really great example of a super-complex issue that, despite the media’s shrieking hyperbole, we have yet to pin down. Blaming neonics or Glyphosate or any one input would do a serious disservice to the conversation that needs to be taking place on this topic. I highly recommend checking out scientificbeekeeping.org. Or, specifically, Randy’s amazing, dense series of articles on pesticides and bees. Want to talk science + bees? This guy is the guy to go to. He kind of rules. http://scientificbeekeeping.com/pesticide-issues/

    4. Weeds LOVE healthy soil. We don’t kill every weed out there (except pigweed–we are zero tolerance on pigweed and handpull it when necessary.) Once the canopy closes on a crop, no further weed control is necessary. One of the advantages of no-till is planting into residue that acts sort of like mulch, but that doesn’t completely deter weeds. Our soil is so much healthier and less likely to erode with minimum and no-till systems, which are easier to implement with the advent of herbicide-tolerant genetics, transgenic and non-transgenic. We don’t try to kill every bug either–IPM (integrated pest management) makes use of beneficials and uses economic thresholds with research to back up the numbers to determine when an insecticide spray is triggered. in Bt corn, none is usually needed. We conventional farmers aren’t nearly as pesticide happy as you seem to believe–that stuff costs money!

    5. Bees are in decline but not necessarily because of pesticide use alone.
      Glyphosate does not kill bees, btw. My friend’s nephew drank glyphosate CONCENTRATE as a little boy with no ill affects whatsoever; even 20+ years later.
      Just saying.

  5. Remember those that attack
    You online are only interested in messing with you…. Not in a debate.

    When someone stops being logical… Block them

  6. What an excellent article. Unlike most food-related articles, this one provides links for education, not sales. Spread the word on this one if you value science, education, the perks of being in the first world, or what’s on your plate. Seriously. It’s time science takes this country back so we can do more cool stuff like explore the cosmos!

  7. I have the same issue — whenever I ask people to tell me the science behind why they are anti-GMO, they send me a YouTube video. The other day, I got an anonymous letter with an anti-Monsanto clipping from an old magazine. Still not clear what the point of the letter was. I wish the sender would have contacted me so we could talk. I’m open to hearing both sides.

  8. i am lucky: one of my brothers studied agriculture, the other one is studying chemistry and my dad is a farmer. so i can discuss with people who have a scientific and hands-on background rather than just a “gut feeling”. i used to be totally into organic food but now i see things differently. i live in germany and it’s horrible what is going on here. conventional farmers are facing a constant shitstorm fueled by “green” politicians and “activists”. the most horrible thing is that people won’t listen. when someone in my timeline posts some bullshit on facebook (e.g. about the latest “scandal” going on with glyphosate) and i try to reason with them they completely shut down 🙁

  9. This is oh-so refreshing!
    People just won’t shut up about the dangers of vaccinating, cattle welfare, gmo’s and glyphosate.
    I live in Saskatchewan, Canada and am surrounded by fields of canola, peas, flax and many different varieties of cereal crops. Not to mention the cattle, pig and dairy farms that dot the countryside. I also worked at a federally inspected meat plant (I loooooove my meat!) and see firsthand what happens with our food. We have raised and butchered animals ourselves as well.
    If farmers were truly poor stewards of nature they would all go broke. They are a special breed of honest, hardworking people. I am a city girl turned country and I love it so much! We go to a little country church up the mile with our neighbors and it is a dream come true.
    Thank you so much for your diligent legwork in discovering the truth about food. Love it!
    Oh, and by the way, I have an autistic son who was NOT vaccinated before he was diagnosed. We got smart about that camp real quick and we’re all caught up now. ?

    1. Your “autistic son” may want to stay away from MSG’s- sugar and gmo’d foods- I heard an interview by a mother w/ an autistic daughter (she was a nurse) and after doing all the above she n o longer has an autistic daughter- i heard the interview on the KFI AM 640 radio station with “John & Ken:” it was about a year ago- they have archives- perhaps you want to find that interview.

  10. This is the first I heard of you, and I will admit my crusades against misinformation has krept into my world view so much that when I see Health or Fitness in a Facebook page I assume it’s more likely to contain anecdotes than evidence on any topic. (Even the running fitness pages I follow I’m wary of for good reason.)

    But you have shown me this doesn’t need to be the case, I commend you on the great efforts required to learn and understand. You have earnearned my following!

    1. There’s actually a big bias from skeptics against health & fitness pages. That’s I guess the #12th unexpected finding 🙂 Glad to have you on board!

  11. Thanks for helping clarify all this Maria.
    I can appreciate how long it takes you to research all this stuff and get it to make sense. My articles take just as much time!
    Happy that I’ve just discovered your work 😀

  12. Excellent job Maria! I would love it if you would check out our FB page, My Job Depends on Ag. Originally started as a group by 2 men who are directly involved in agriculture in central California, the agricultural heartbeat of America. This is a grassroots movement to show just how many jobs are related to the agricultural industry across America, it’s not just farmers and ranchers, and to help educate the non-ag public and provide first-hand stories about where their food and fiber comes from and how it’s grown. I am sharing this post on our FB page and will be looking forward to more great work!

  13. Love this! My family owns and operates a dairy farm in Nebraska and we were shocked to receive hate posts on social media after a family friend posted a photo of their daughter bottle feeding our calves. This poster went around and around about the “truth” behind dairy farms and how we sold male baby calves as veal……completely untrue. Society really needs to talk to their farmers if they have concerns! We’d love to share our passion for the land and animals that we steward!

  14. “Science based” ???? Which science ? You act as though scientists agree ! And you act as though Monsanto cares about what scientist say when it goes against them . It doesn’t take 2 months of research to find out that Monsanto’s scientist claimed for 30 years that roundup was safe . Now the leading leading health scientists in the world say it probably causes cancer . The findings are released through the world health organization . Do think Monsanto has a financial reason to not be objective ? Please !

    1. Monsanto is a greedy corporation who never discloses the full dangers of products like they did with DDT, PCBs, and Agent Orange.

    2. The WHO announcement was a result of anti-GMO activists corrupting their decision making process – once they realized they had been duped, they released a second statement that unlike the first is based on real science, and cancels the first. Roundup is not only safe, the alternatives (particularly those used by the organic industry) are quite undeniably not safe – for the farmer, for the environment or for the consumer. Almost all recent food recalls in the US have been connected to organic farming methods, while there have been none in over 30 years for GMO crops.

    3. #2, #3 and #11 above applies to you.

      “2. People will believe what they want to believe – often no matter what!”

      “3. Our critical thinking skills are (in many cases) pathetic.”

      “11. People think themselves as “informed” while misunderstanding what science really is.”

  15. My students (I am a biology professor in a college) told me GMOs are bad because they are made by Monsanto, a big corporation. I asked them why is being a big corporation a bad thing. They tell me it is because they are greedy and just want money. I replied that I am also fond of money and that is why and most people work. Don’t the scientists at Monsanto have needs and families to support? Don’t they deserve to make money? The young people of today are so naive it is scary. I reminded them that just because Facebook is owned by a young guy wearing a T-shirt doesn’t mean he isn’t very very rich, or that their cell phone comes from Apple, a very rich corporation they freely send a lot of money to every month to maintain their lifeline!! OH boy are we in trouble!!

  16. Thank you for this! From a pediatrician and farmer’s wife, I can tell you that you have hit the nail on the head! Thank you thank you!!!

  17. This is like reading an article written by a former cult member. It’s all things that scientifically minded people already know but the author presents it as if it’s new. All of these “revelations” are just common sense to me.

  18. Thank you for this good for thought. I think I’ve fallen into some of these traps/myths you’ve exposed. I look forward to learning much more from your website.

  19. at least “IVF babies” are made from REAL genetic material, the way nature intended.. (not frankenbabies)-

    I guess the difference could be also look at as the robotic machines Monsanto is looking at to replace humans from planting and growing seeds.
    The artificial machine may be doing the planting- the difference is; Are REAL seeds being planted or fake, gmo’d spliced seeds being used? The final product is NOT the same. You can’t compare “IVF babies” with artificially produced seeds.