[andreyf]

If I had a free thinker award to give, I'd give you one. It's amazing how otherwise "open minded" people seem to fall prey to the dogmas of organic/all-natural/no-additives/USDA-approved/recycled-packaging marketing.

But seriously people, how many lives does genetically engineered rice have to save before you admit that "all natural" sometimes means "inferior", and "artificial" is sometimes "good". You know what's 100% organic? Malaria. And there's little more artificial than the chemical-soaked neon bednets saving millions of lives across Africa.

[tvon]

That's a ridiculous argument.

You could distribute Big Macs to the starving masses and credit McDonalds with saving millions of lives, but that wouldn't make it recommended eating for those of us with access to alternatives.

[andreyf]

It isn't an argument - note my use of the word "sometimes". It's a counter-example to the dogma of organic == good, artificial == evil. The burden of proof that a BigMac would be healthier if it were made from "all natural" ingredients. So, show us one study which shows people who only consume "organic" food to be healthier than those who eat genetically engineered food. You simply won't find it.

For a more concrete argument, let me point you to The China Study [1], which gives more evidence for vegetarianism being related to good health than the "organic" lobby could ever dream of for "organic food". If people really cared about their health, they'd be vegetarian.

Organic food has a lot more to do with identity marketing (like BMW and A&F) than it does real nutrition.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study

[dejb]

You are demonstrating the same 'them and us' attitude that is present in the original article. You show your mistake by lumping together 'organic/all-natural/no-additives/USDA-approved/recycled-packaging' as if they were all a single proposition pushed by some united group of science haters. If you can't evaluate each proposition on it's merits then you are failing prey to dogma yourself.

> the burden of proof that a BigMac would be healthier if it were made from "all natural" ingredients.

Why should the burden of proof fall one way or the other on this proposition? This is the classic technique of those who see themselves as guardians of scientific orthodoxy.

> which gives more evidence for vegetarianism being related to good health than the "organic" lobby could ever dream of for "organic food"

That doesn't mean that knowing the value of organic food also wouldn't be useful.

[stcredzero]

I don't think the original commenter was thinking along these dogmatic lines. I think he's coming from the direction that there's a lot that we don't know about food, and how our metabolism works. Sometimes, it's best to leave well enough alone, until we understand more.

As for hybrid rice, yes, it saved lots of lives. But many argue that there were negative side effects.

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

Here's a story that predates the Green Revolution. I think it might be illuminating.

A long time ago in China, there was a public official named Confucius. (Yes, that Confucius.) For the betterment of his nation, he engaged in a huge campaign to popularize the eating of polished (white) rice. He did this because white rice is much easier to store for longer periods, and more conducive to warehousing and other logistical activities. Thus did Confucius greatly reduce the incidence of famine in his country. However, in the following years, there was an epidemic of beri-beri in China.

Human beings didn't discover vitamin B1 until the late 1800s.

[andreyf]

Informative example, but metaphor != empirical evidence. Why not claim that USDA approved organic food is the "white rice" of our times?

[dejb]

In the absence of solid evidence, metaphorical reasoning is a valid technique to use to explore the possibilities.

> Why not claim that USDA approved organic food is the "white rice" of our times?

Why not indeed. It could be true. How does one work out the a priori likelihood of this being true to know whether it is worth looking into further? Metaphors might be one valid method. I can see an argument that some pesticides actually enhance human health. An analogue here would be the decline in iodine levels in milk when farmers stopped using iodophors.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/184_06_200306/letters_20...

I'm not saying I think the proposition is likely to be true but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand and I wouldn't assume you are being unscientific for proposing it without proof.

[darkxanthos]

How is it that saying what goes into our food must be going into our bodies Means we aren't thinking straight? Don't forget there was a period when cigarettes were seen as ok for you too.

[andreyf]

How is it that saying what goes into our food must be going into our bodies Means we aren't thinking straight?

Because that would be a gross oversimplification of "food" and "bodies". Many drugs have a narrow therapeutic index, meaning the difference between "save your life" and "kill you" is a small matter of dosage. How do you explain that using "what going into your body must be [good|evil]".

[mcantelon]

Living in a society with rising cancer rates and given the choice between food bathed in possibily carcinogenic pesticides and food that isn't, curiously enough I'll choose the food without the pesticides.

[andreyf]

If you avoid everything "possibly carcinogenic", or even everything "certainly carcinogenic", you'll have a very long and boring life.