I've mentioned to
Ann Althouse that she ought to have a tag labeled "Crack Was Right" for all the pronouncements I've correctly made on her site. She hasn't done it yet but, if she had, boy oh boy, would it get a workout! My latest taboo to be skewered -
the value of organic food:
Does an organic strawberry contain more vitamin C than a conventional one?
Maybe — or maybe not.
Stanford University scientists have weighed in on the “maybe not” side of the debate after an extensive examination of four decades of research comparing organic and conventional foods.
They concluded that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts, which tend to be far less expensive. Nor were they any less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria like E. coli.
The researchers also found no obvious health advantages to organic meats.
Conventional fruits and vegetables did have more pesticide residue, but the levels were almost always under the allowed safety limits, the scientists said. The Environmental Protection Agency sets the limits at levels that it says do not harm humans.
“When we began this project, we thought that there would likely be some findings that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food,” said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy and the senior author of the paper, which appears in Tuesday’s issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. “I think we were definitely surprised.”
Not me - I'm the guy covered in protective armor above - I know a scam when I see one and organics have been a HUGE one for what? Over three decades now? That's a long time to be stupid, people.
Of course the worst part about it is how the hippies behind it raised the cost of food overall, by making people so afraid of trace amounts of pesticides, that conventional farmers had to unnecessarily jump through hoops to accommodate them. (Mitt Romney, above, has made a pretty penny
selling you worthless supplements as well.) If you're someone who buys this crap and claims to care about "the poor," well pat yourself on the back for insuring they had less in their cupboards for the same money.
And what about
Whole Foods? Good golly wow, can anyone
still claim they're your buddies (O.K., except for the white chick with the dreadlocks who appears to be in every one I've ever had the misfortune to walk into? What is it with you, Lady? Do they let you sleep there or something)?
Whole Foods is ripping you off - and misinforming you - about organics. They're ripping you off - and misinforming you - about "alternative" medicine. They're ripping you off - and misinforming you - about wine. (Here's my posts tagged with
"wine" - read and learn.)
To be honest with you, there's hardly a single thing I can think of that
Whole Foods carries that's not a rip-off or they're not lying about. Wait - I take that back:
They make some pretty good fried chicken, but even that is priced waaay too expensively.
I think the only thing about
Whole Foods that's good is it provides liberals with somewhere to go and feel superior about their ignorance. (Here's my posts tagged with
"organics" - read and learn.)
In that way,
Whole Foods is
the Barack Obama of supermarkets. Like voting for Obama,
Whole Foods allows you to "do something" about non-existent straw man issues, while screwing up life for everybody else - and it costs you. In the end, it costs everybody.
Except for that white chick with the dreadlocks - she seems to be getting a *hella sweet* deal,…
