Penn & Teller Bull Organic Food

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Farang
Yes, especially in this case. They took some hippie nutballs, paired them with highly educated pawns of the agricultural industry, and carefully edited the footage to give you this piece of work. I'm highly critical of the organic foods movement and its consequences for the world's poor, but this made me lose any respect I had for Penn & Teller (whose past work I'd found amusing).

All I keep hearing is "bla bla bla bla bla." I don't hear any of their "facts" being refuted. But here's one: they over-stated the case of organic farmers using pesticides. It *is* true that a lot of the organic pesticides are a hell of a lot nastier & dangerous than modern pesticides. However, their use isn't that widespread.

That said, how the hell do you know if you have non-pesticide organic, or pesticide organic? And, if it's true that a lot of the organic produce comes from China (20% should be easy to refute if it's wrong... over 200 replies and no one has refuted that statistic yet, which was the one thing that really stuck out to me who is skeptical of just about everything I see.), would you really trust the Chinese? Hell, if I knew any of the food I regularly purchased came from China, I'd avoid it.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
I watched Food Inc a while back, and one of the things that annoyed me about that movie was how they would rail against hormones and preservatives and genetically modified crops, then not even bother to give us a scientific explanation as to why those things are harmful. Instead they want us to simply take it as a given that if it isn't "natural", it must be bad for you.

now you're getting it.

The last sentence sums up the entire environmental movement.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Farang
Yes, especially in this case. They took some hippie nutballs, paired them with highly educated pawns of the agricultural industry, and carefully edited the footage to give you this piece of work. I'm highly critical of the organic foods movement and its consequences for the world's poor, but this made me lose any respect I had for Penn & Teller (whose past work I'd found amusing).

All I keep hearing is "bla bla bla bla bla." I don't hear any of their "facts" being refuted. But here's one: they over-stated the case of organic farmers using pesticides. It *is* true that a lot of the organic pesticides are a hell of a lot nastier & dangerous than modern pesticides. However, their use isn't that widespread.

That said, how the hell do you know if you have non-pesticide organic, or pesticide organic? And, if it's true that a lot of the organic produce comes from China (20% should be easy to refute if it's wrong... over 200 replies and no one has refuted that statistic yet, which was the one thing that really stuck out to me who is skeptical of just about everything I see.), would you really trust the Chinese? Hell, if I knew any of the food I regularly purchased came from China, I'd avoid it.

I'm not advocating organic foods so I don't really feel the need to make an argument for them. It's as if I'm watching a North Korean propaganda video--once I realize they aren't really fairly characterizing the other side, I don't feel the need to investigate individual facts they present because you can skew just about any set of facts to convince yourself of just about anything.

That said, I do have a huge distrust of food corporations. Look at 99% of food labels, learn what the shit they put in your food really is, and you'll likely feel the same way. Quite simply it is things that should not be consumed, for example any color-number coloring agent (Yellow 5, example) comes from petroleum. And that shit is in everything. I don't care what a scientist tells me (those scientists have frequently been proven wrong, haven't they?) I am quite sure petroleum should not go into my body.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

That said, how the hell do you know if you have non-pesticide organic, or pesticide organic? And, if it's true that a lot of the organic produce comes from China (20% should be easy to refute if it's wrong... over 200 replies and no one has refuted that statistic yet, which was the one thing that really stuck out to me who is skeptical of just about everything I see.), would you really trust the Chinese? Hell, if I knew any of the food I regularly purchased came from China, I'd avoid it.

I don't think I've ever seen organic food that was from China. I see very little food of any kind from there. It's mostly limited to prepackaged foods, and probably some specialty produce.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: DrPizza

That said, how the hell do you know if you have non-pesticide organic, or pesticide organic? And, if it's true that a lot of the organic produce comes from China (20% should be easy to refute if it's wrong... over 200 replies and no one has refuted that statistic yet, which was the one thing that really stuck out to me who is skeptical of just about everything I see.), would you really trust the Chinese? Hell, if I knew any of the food I regularly purchased came from China, I'd avoid it.

I don't think I've ever seen organic food that was from China. I see very little food of any kind from there. It's mostly limited to prepackaged foods, and probably some specialty produce.

And how would you know the difference?

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: DrPizza

That said, how the hell do you know if you have non-pesticide organic, or pesticide organic? And, if it's true that a lot of the organic produce comes from China (20% should be easy to refute if it's wrong... over 200 replies and no one has refuted that statistic yet, which was the one thing that really stuck out to me who is skeptical of just about everything I see.), would you really trust the Chinese? Hell, if I knew any of the food I regularly purchased came from China, I'd avoid it.

I don't think I've ever seen organic food that was from China. I see very little food of any kind from there. It's mostly limited to prepackaged foods, and probably some specialty produce.

And how would you know the difference?

Read the label, or sticker. Country of origin is always on the product.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: EGGO

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
this video was mostly bullshit..they pointed out a couple of things you learn about in
pysch 101 such as the fact that people are not very good at knowing the difference in taste tests or other subjective testing

they took the wimpy route and failed to address the strongest arguements from the organic movement..

they took a couple of idiots (albeit nice idiots)

maybe they should have had the balls to talk to some people who at least had the credentials to back up what they claim

What are the strongest arguments of the organic movement? I've only heard what they addressed: Better for environment, no toxins used, healthier. Who would be ones with credentials? I know they had a farmer, and one other person.

my gf grew up on a farm... her grandparents grew organic foods until they died. the soil had to be tested every year and it couldn't have ANY chemical/pesticide contamination for 8 years prior to use if it was going to be organic. they always fought with the neighbor farmer because he would be a dick and would grow crops at least 3 feet into their property and contaminate their soil. her grandmother went and mowed down all his corn that was on their property :lol;

penn and teller are bullshit.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: Phokus

Funny thing is, Penn & Teller advocates 'doing your own research', and most of the viewers i know who watch the show take their show as gospel and NEVER do their own research.

Most people - and institutions - simply can not do the research. Do you expect Average Joe to conduct a double blind clinical study on the effects of second-hand smoke?

I enjoy Penn & Teller and I think they do a reasonably good job of playing Devil's advocate. They typically introduce reasonable experts in their respective fields which lends support to the arguments presented.

untrue.

 

[eits]

psychology has more to do with the taste tests than the actual fruit that was taste tested.

you could have painted a piece of shit to make it look like a banana and said it was organic and they'd still say it tasted better than the genetically modified banana. your brain dictates how things taste to you.

why is it that one girl can go and eat oysters and not have a problem doing that, but the texture of a blown load in her mouth makes her gag? it's because of psychology.

some penn and teller shows are bullshit. by profession, they're great at convincing people of things that they want them to. they find the least knowledgeable people and non-progressive to represent the views of the thing they're criticizing, thus making their arguments far more convincing.

there's a whole list of things that they consider "bullshit" and i'm sure that they make a convincing argument on their shows, too... because they do what fox news does all the time, which is find nutjobs or idiots to defend what they are trying to slam. and seeing how laypeople don't know the difference between good solid journalism and manipulative tactics, they eat it up.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Farang
I am quite sure petroleum should not go into my body.

You're talking about a product that is produced using a component of petroleum as a starting block. And, your "point" is exactly what we've been talking about! People making decisions without adequate evidence other than gut instinct.

"I know all the scientists say one thing, but they get proven wrong all the time (although I have no evidence of this.) So, I'm not going to listen to people a hell of a lot smarter than me. Instead, I'm going to listen to my gut caveman instincts. 'Uggg, petroleum taste yuk. Petroleum bad.' "

Unfortunately, YOU ARE WRONG!
Aspirin. http://www.chemheritage.org/ed...m/glossary/coaltar.htm

In Felix Hoffmann's time, most aspirin was made from coal tar, though today it is usually made from petroleum.

WTF??! Aspirin is made from petroleum?! It used to be made from coal tar??! They don't waste time deriving it from willow trees any more?

 

[Babbles]

Petrochemicals are the source of just about everything out there; pharmaceuticals, food additives, medical devices, Ikea furniture - you name it, it probably has some petrochemical ingredient.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Farang
I am quite sure petroleum should not go into my body.

You're talking about a product that is produced using a component of petroleum as a starting block. And, your "point" is exactly what we've been talking about! People making decisions without adequate evidence other than gut instinct.

"I know all the scientists say one thing, but they get proven wrong all the time (although I have no evidence of this.) So, I'm not going to listen to people a hell of a lot smarter than me. Instead, I'm going to listen to my gut caveman instincts. 'Uggg, petroleum taste yuk. Petroleum bad.' "

Unfortunately, YOU ARE WRONG!
Aspirin. http://www.chemheritage.org/ed...m/glossary/coaltar.htm

In Felix Hoffmann's time, most aspirin was made from coal tar, though today it is usually made from petroleum.

WTF??! Aspirin is made from petroleum?! It used to be made from coal tar??! They don't waste time deriving it from willow trees any more?

I dispute your assertion that scientists must be smarter than me. A smart man would not feed Red 5 to millions of candy-loving children, and would not spray DDT on the apples I put into pie.

The fact is many common food ingredients are proven toxic carcinogens. BHA/BHT, for example. Another fact is that repeatedly the food industry has sought to cover up its mistakes for years before chemicals are withdrawn from use. With this in mind, it is the smart man's creed to eat food that is, well, FOOD! Give me bread that is bread, frozen berries that is made of berries, and cheese that is cheese. Pretty simply, really. You go on telling me how smart you are with your Yellow 5 petroleum extract, and I'll go on eating real food.

Rational? Not always. But I'm not going to be studying the latest scientific journals, so considering how often those glorious scientists fuck up, it is a good rule to live by.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Farang
I am quite sure petroleum should not go into my body.

You're talking about a product that is produced using a component of petroleum as a starting block. And, your "point" is exactly what we've been talking about! People making decisions without adequate evidence other than gut instinct.

"I know all the scientists say one thing, but they get proven wrong all the time (although I have no evidence of this.) So, I'm not going to listen to people a hell of a lot smarter than me. Instead, I'm going to listen to my gut caveman instincts. 'Uggg, petroleum taste yuk. Petroleum bad.' "

Unfortunately, YOU ARE WRONG!
Aspirin. http://www.chemheritage.org/ed...m/glossary/coaltar.htm

In Felix Hoffmann's time, most aspirin was made from coal tar, though today it is usually made from petroleum.

WTF??! Aspirin is made from petroleum?! It used to be made from coal tar??! They don't waste time deriving it from willow trees any more?

WTF????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin

not made from petro products.

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: DrPizza

That said, how the hell do you know if you have non-pesticide organic, or pesticide organic? And, if it's true that a lot of the organic produce comes from China (20% should be easy to refute if it's wrong... over 200 replies and no one has refuted that statistic yet, which was the one thing that really stuck out to me who is skeptical of just about everything I see.), would you really trust the Chinese? Hell, if I knew any of the food I regularly purchased came from China, I'd avoid it.

I don't think I've ever seen organic food that was from China. I see very little food of any kind from there. It's mostly limited to prepackaged foods, and probably some specialty produce.

And how would you know the difference?

Read the label, or sticker. Country of origin is always on the product.

According to the video, it isn't or it can be faked

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: BassBomb

According to the video, it isn't or it can be faked

It's on the various food I get. Some produce is multiple choice, but I don't think I've ever seen China listed. Faking it's illegal, and I think would get a distributor in fairly big trouble if found out.

 

[cheezy321]

This thread is full of win.




And waffles. Organic Waffles.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Farang
I am quite sure petroleum should not go into my body.

You're talking about a product that is produced using a component of petroleum as a starting block. And, your "point" is exactly what we've been talking about! People making decisions without adequate evidence other than gut instinct.

"I know all the scientists say one thing, but they get proven wrong all the time (although I have no evidence of this.) So, I'm not going to listen to people a hell of a lot smarter than me. Instead, I'm going to listen to my gut caveman instincts. 'Uggg, petroleum taste yuk. Petroleum bad.' "

Unfortunately, YOU ARE WRONG!
Aspirin. http://www.chemheritage.org/ed...m/glossary/coaltar.htm

In Felix Hoffmann's time, most aspirin was made from coal tar, though today it is usually made from petroleum.

WTF??! Aspirin is made from petroleum?! It used to be made from coal tar??! They don't waste time deriving it from willow trees any more?

WTF????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin

not made from petro products.

http://www.shell.us/home/conte...ts/petro_products.html

Nonfuel petro product examples
Some common nonfuel petro products are:

liquids used in paints and printing inks
oil and greases used to keep car engines and other machines running smoothly
waxes used in making candles, packages, matches, polishes, crayons, and candy
petroleum jelly used in medical products, skin-care products, and make-up
asphalt used for paving roads, and materials for roofing and flooring
synthetic rubber used in hoses
synthetic fibers used in carpets, clothing, and shoes
medicine, such as aspirin and antihistamines
life-saving medical supplies, such as artificial hearts, heart valve replacements, and pacemakers
chemicals, such as pesticides
detergents, such as laundry detergent and dishwashing liquid

Today, phenol (commonly a product of benzene, coal oxidation, or petroleum ) is the chemical starting material in the industrial production of aspirin.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Farang
I am quite sure petroleum should not go into my body.

You're talking about a product that is produced using a component of petroleum as a starting block. And, your "point" is exactly what we've been talking about! People making decisions without adequate evidence other than gut instinct.

"I know all the scientists say one thing, but they get proven wrong all the time (although I have no evidence of this.) So, I'm not going to listen to people a hell of a lot smarter than me. Instead, I'm going to listen to my gut caveman instincts. 'Uggg, petroleum taste yuk. Petroleum bad.' "

Unfortunately, YOU ARE WRONG!
Aspirin. http://www.chemheritage.org/ed...m/glossary/coaltar.htm

In Felix Hoffmann's time, most aspirin was made from coal tar, though today it is usually made from petroleum.

WTF??! Aspirin is made from petroleum?! It used to be made from coal tar??! They don't waste time deriving it from willow trees any more?

WTF????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin

not made from petro products.

http://www.shell.us/home/conte...ts/petro_products.html

Nonfuel petro product examples
Some common nonfuel petro products are:

liquids used in paints and printing inks
oil and greases used to keep car engines and other machines running smoothly
waxes used in making candles, packages, matches, polishes, crayons, and candy
petroleum jelly used in medical products, skin-care products, and make-up
asphalt used for paving roads, and materials for roofing and flooring
synthetic rubber used in hoses
synthetic fibers used in carpets, clothing, and shoes
medicine, such as aspirin and antihistamines
life-saving medical supplies, such as artificial hearts, heart valve replacements, and pacemakers
chemicals, such as pesticides
detergents, such as laundry detergent and dishwashing liquid

Today, phenol (commonly a product of benzene, coal oxidation, or petroleum ) is the chemical starting material in the industrial production of aspirin.

A French chemist, Charles Frederic Gerhardt, was the first to prepare acetylsalicylic acid in 1853 (patented under the name aspirin on March 6, 1899 [8]). In the course of his work on the synthesis and properties of various acid anhydrides, he mixed acetyl chloride with a sodium salt of salicylic acid (sodium salicylate). A vigorous reaction ensued, and the resulting melt soon solidified.[9] Since no structural theory existed at that time, Gerhardt called the compound he obtained "salicylic-acetic anhydride" (wasserfreie Salicylsäure-Essigsäure). This preparation of aspirin ("salicylic-acetic anhydride") was one of the many reactions Gerhardt conducted for his paper on anhydrides, but he did not pursue it further.

no petro products there.

however it is possible later on someone used petro products to make aspirin.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Phokus
Nope, just calling out your ignorance yet again. The fact that you think 'libertarians = objectivity' is hilarious. If you were objective, you would acknowledge scientific facts when it DOESN'T suit your agenda. Instead, you throw out science in favor of anecdotal evidence when you hit the cognitive dissonance wall.

I believe he's referring to objectivism as put forth by Rand.

Then he would say, 'we're followers of objectivism', not 'we're followers of objectivity'.

Why do you have to shit in every thread.

I don't care who you are and I haven't gotten into any arguments with you but I can easily see you turn every thing you touch into shit.

Why the moderators allow you to turn everything into name calling blows my mind. I just did a search based on your username and your habits are easy to see.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/hea...s-two-in-hospital.html

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
(1)- Trying to make a substantive statement about the entirety of all 'organic' food, and package it into a TV special, is by design a limited and oversimplified undertaking. Organic food, individually, may either be legitimate or bullshit. There are tens of thousands of different companies, distributors, varieties of food, and reasons for or against the 'organic' treatment. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the organic food industry are just people cashing in on a fad, and with no legitimate differences between conventional industrial food production. I'm also sure that some of it is indeed legitimate, as I've had direct experience with free-range grass-fed organic longhorn beef ranches. Let me tell you, that beef is some of the tastiest, healthiest beef you can possibly imagine, and it actually has Omega-3 fatty acids (lab proven), whereas the corn-fed standard industrial beef lacks that beneficial element.

(2)- Penn & Teller are entertainers, their job #1 is to make money for themselves and their producers. They do this by being interesting, and by being deliberately controversial. To strike upon a hot-button issue is paydirt for them, and makes for good viewing IMHO. Ask yourself, what's more entertaining .. a well-qualified reasonable debate with appropriate experts with a wide variety in perspective .. or a comedic ambush using hand-picked morons on one side, and some 'experts' on one side who merely make flat statements without examining any of the complexities of the issue?

(3)- Quality varies widely with almost any consumable product ever made. At the end of the day, one should be responsible for educating themselves with as much accuracy as the subject or item demands, so that an understanding can be reached to make good decisions about what you put into your body.

(4)- Nothing is perfect.

(5)- This issue should rightfully be apolitical.

(6)- The varieties of food and food production / distribution / etc, are so wildly varied that it's obscenely idiotic to label an entire industry as either 'bullshit' or 'legitimate', when the facts support a lot of both, but you MUST get granular with the data to discern that.

Best post in the thread. Micheal Moore was the first thing I thought of watching this show (and his biased cherrypicking "bullsht").

Last, someone mentioned that organic milk, specifically Horizon tasted better than supermarket milk and I agree. I challenge anyone to taste test Horizon vs your regular milk and tell me if you taste a difference.

 

[GasX]

I buy organic milk as it is (theoretically) hormone free.

 

[Aharami]

why would I care what a couple of magicians have to say about anything?
no, i dont eat organic food

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Last, someone mentioned that organic milk, specifically Horizon tasted better than supermarket milk and I agree. I challenge anyone to taste test Horizon vs your regular milk and tell me if you taste a difference.

I have. I have tried the local generic milk, Prairie Farms, and Horizon. Prairie Farms and Horizon taste much the same, and both taste better than the supermarket brand. Prairie Farms is not organic.

Again, folks, boutique foods and higher end foods will usually be better then lower end foods and generics. It has less to do with organic and more to do with lower scale of production and higher attention to quality.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: GasX
I buy organic milk as it is (theoretically) hormone free.

You mean added hormones, correct? Because there will be naturally occurring hormones in it. And you don't have to pay for organic milk to get milk that has no added rbST. At least not where I live. Publix milk is free of added rbST, just not organic certified, and it's only $2.89 a gal.

Oh and, interesting comments.

Hormones and Milk ? The Deceptive Marketing Continues

December 2, 2007 at 3:15 pm · Filed under Consumer Attitudes About Biotechnology, rbST Public Discussion



Recently South Central Pennsylvania has been plastered with new billboards touting the virtues of milk from Rutter?s Dairy. It is billed as ?FREE OF ARTIFICIAL HORMONES? and ?FREE OF ARTIFICIAL GROWTH HORMONES? on their milk jug labels.

I have been a large-animal veterinarian for 26 years and have been involved in the dairy industry all of my life. So, maybe I can help clarify what all this hormone talk is about. Was the ?old milk? unsafe? Is the ?new milk? really safer?

Hormones are naturally occurring compounds produced by all plants and animals (including humans) to regulate specific bodily functions. Take insulin for example, this is a protein hormone that helps our bodies utilize glucose (blood sugar)?without this hormone you will die. Our bodies produce and depend on hundreds and hundreds of hormones for us to live. Hormones are not limited to the animal kingdom; plants also depend on hormones to grow and develop.

So all of our food naturally contains many hormones, and consuming them is unavoidable. So now knowing that all food has many hormones, primarily protein based, what effect do they have on us? Well, protein hormones are simply broken down and digested to furnish our bodies with essential amino acids.

Let me first state that I have no concerns about the wholesomeness and safety of Rutter?s Milk or any other brand. My family has and will continue to buy Rutter?s Milk and know it is safe. My contention is that Rutter?s advertising is now very confusing and extremely misleading. So why is ?no artificial hormones? coming up now?

Well in 1994 the FDA approved a synthetic compound named bovine somatotropin or rbST for short, it is also called bovine growth hormone (bGH). The ?r? means that it was produced synthetically. This is a bio-identical hormone, ? an exact copy of nature?s own bST, a protein hormone that is present in all cows and all cow?s milk in the exact same manner that human growth hormone (hGH) is present in human breast milk! Let me emphasize that BST, natural or synthetic is not a steroid and should not be confused with steroids.

So how is this used? Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that supplementing cows with bST would result in about a 10 percent increase in milk production. It wasn?t until recently that technology allowed for commercial manufacturing of bST. Since 1994 bST has been safely used by dairy producers to increase milk production. This product has been more thoroughly studied and evaluated than any other animal product. The FDA thoroughly examined its human safety, and during 12 years of use, I have never seen any harm to cows, which receive a simple injection every two weeks.

The increased milk production allows dairy farmers to produce our milk with fewer cows. This lowers production cost for dairy farmers and is better for the environment by reducing animal waste and land under production. These are all positive consequences of the use of rbST. Rutter?s however, joining a trend started by some national milk companies, has told its dairymen to stop using this safe and FDA-approved product. Long before Rutter?s joined the trend, milk companies found they could charge more for this product by convincing the unknowing consumer that this ?new milk? is better and safer. The FDA has categorically stated that there is no difference between milk. All milk contains bST, and milk from treated cows contains no more bST than any other. In fact no test can distinguish between them.

Rutter?s advertisement would lead you to believe that artificial hormones are being added to the milk. The facts are that a bio-identical hormone was given to the cow to supplement her own natural levels of bST to increase her production.

Shame on Rutter?s. They are simply doing this for economic gain and not for food safety reasons. In addition to playing on people?s fears to hype their own milk, Rutter?s is not even compensating its dairymen for their increased cost as a result of losing this product.

Consumers need to know these facts: All milk contains bST, rbST is bio-identical to natural bST, all foods contain hormones, and use of rbST is good for the environment and helps local farmers. Rutter?s advertising that rbST is ?banned? in Canada and the European Union would lead you to believe that rbST milk is not safe. The reality is that while Canada and the European Union have not approved bST, it is not ?banned?. Both of these countries have concluded that rbST milk is absolutely safe and they freely accept milk imports from countries using rbST. The use of bST in these countries is not approved for socio-economical reasons not for food safety reasons! Buying into the scare campaign of Rutter?s and other big dairy companies does nothing but take money out of your pocket and put it into theirs.

And as to the accusations about the experts on that P&T episode being shills for agricultural industry, you do realize much of the organic labeled stuff is coming from that same industry, correct?

The local organic farmers stuff, in your area is great, but if you got it from Wal-Mart, Cosco, Target, etc. most likely it came from a big agri company.