*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, August 5th, 2009 4:41pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

I'm really beginning to get more and more pissed of at Penn. He asks us to think independently but then shoves down our throats two "experts" that contradict opinions as gospel truth.

Do a little research on the two institutions these two skeptics/"experts" represent.

1) Hudson Institute
The Hudson Institute is an American, conservative, non-profit think tank founded in 1961, in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, by futurist, military strategist, and systems theorist Herman Kahn and his colleagues at the RAND Corporation.

Companies such as Eli Lilly, Monsanto, and DuPont fund this place. And YES, they are tied in DEEPLY with BIG AGRICULTURE!!!

2) Reason Magazine
Reason is a libertarian monthly magazine from the Reason Foundation.

Reason was founded in 1968 by Lanny Friedlander as a more-or-less monthly mimeographed publication. In 1970 it was purchased by Robert W. Poole, Manuel S. Klausner, and Tibor R. Machan, who set it on a more regular publishing schedule. As the monthly print magazine of "free minds and free markets", it covers politics, culture, and ideas with a mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews.

Key phrase above: FREE MARKETS

People, think for yourselves, even while listening to the very Libertarian Penn Jillette. It doesn't take long to look up some information on your own to find out who's trying to do the real spinning.

If you come to the same conclusions as he does, then great, but don't let him brainwash you the same way he believes the organic farms are brainwashing everyone else.

Me? I actually grow my own food and purchase what I can't grow at a local farm in a valley nearby where they use organic methods to grow their food. I know where the source of the majority of my food comes from; and that's my favorite part of it - knowledge of the source.

"It doesn't take long to look up some information on your own to find out who's trying to do the real spinning."

^ thanks, i did just what you said

took about 20 seconds...

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/08/19/organic.cooking.pv/index.html

"Researchers studied five different crops -- carrots, kale, mature peas, apples and potatoes -- which were cultivated both organically (without pesticides) and conventionally (with the use of pesticides) and found that there was no higher level of trace elements in the food grown organically."

I went back through and I'm pretty sure that each time they do the organic/non-organic taste test, they put the non-organic on a blue plate and the organic on a red. Blue always gets the most play for goodness.

>> ^Enzoblue:
I went back through and I'm pretty sure that each time they do the organic/non-organic taste test, they put the non-organic on a blue plate and the organic on a red. Blue always gets the most play for goodness.


No, they switched it up between the tomatoes and the apples, I believe.

My argument isn't necessarily against their arguments (i.e. nutrition, etc.) it's that P&T disguise their sources/experts as, well, unbiased, which they clearly are NOT.

They have no problem at all telling the viewer what the biases are of the panel of others who are in support of organic foods.

Two points they did not address is 1) Knowledge of the food source and the peace of mind that comes with this and 2) Supporting LOCAL farmers. Yes, they addressed the whole "small farmer" thing, but not the local farmer. By supporting your local farmer you are supporting your local economy, simply put.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, August 8th, 2009 8:39am PDT - promote requested by EDD.

Jeez. Biased much? They're missing the point.

Most of our produce and vegetables come from outside the USA from countries like China, Costa Rica, Brazil, etc. That stuff you can buy in any conventional supermarket like Walmart or Target. Now compare the ripeness and taste of THAT food (which is commonly available) to organic food. That's where the difference is and where the comparison should be made.

Food that is picked before it's ripe, shipped frozen across the atlantic, and sits on a shelf can not be as good as organic, locally grown food because the food did not have the time to absorb the nutrients from the ground.

Plus, they're putting scientists against malnourished pot heads. Hardly a fair debate here. Entertaining at best, but it's probably a good idea to not get into a debate about organic foods where your information is coming from a biased comedy show.

It's really simple, locally grown is way better. Organic or non-organic doesn't matter.

Support your local farmer or grow your own stuff. If you go to the supermarket and buy "organic" stuff, you're just wasting your money.

You don't have to present both sides of the argument fairly when one side is total crap.

>> ^DonanFear:

It's really simple, locally grown is way better. Organic or non-organic doesn't matter.
Support your local farmer or grow your own stuff. If you go to the supermarket and buy "organic" stuff, you're just wasting your money.


exactly, the reason why people find organic food local sources easily is because unless they are selling that overpriced version (ie organic), they can't compete with the volume from BIG FARMING

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by critical_d.

Awarding Boise_Lib with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*length=9:59

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 9:59 - length declared by Boise_Lib.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.