Penn & Teller claims organic food is "bullshit", fails to mention that their expert is paid by Monsanto

Actually, the Cato Institute is funded almost entirely by individual donors. The amount of money ExxonMobile contributes is a very tiny fraction, by comparison. This is because Cato specifically does not want anyone to reach your incorrect conclusion that they're being influenced by any particular business or party. You can't just go to sourcewatch and jump to a conclusion -- read the annual reports.

In fact, Cato is probably the only think tank out there that attacks Republicans, Democrats, lobbyists, special interests, and big business (as in corporate welfare -- big oil included).

I love that the author criticizes people who are lobbyists. He/She makes you believe that if you are part of a lobby that you are evil Of course there are no "Green" lobbyists. And this website isn't funded by anyone or anything but free love and the "corporate" sponsors. When are the Organic Gurus going to admit that Organic Foods is just another type of big business just like Exxon Mobil. And I really don't like when people take one part of an argument and find fault in it and then exclude all the other parts of the argument. There was more than one expert on the show.

Corporations like ExxonMobile and lobbyists like the American Petroleum Institute funds the Cato Institute. And the Cato Institute funds climate denialism. What more is there to say?

thinkst:

> ...Cato Institute is funded almost entirely by individual donors. The amount of money ExxonMobile contributes is a very tiny fraction, by comparison.

True - but who are these individuals? ExxonMobil board members, perhaps?

Regardless, Cato's global warming denial agenda is blatant and undeniable. They (like most / all libertarians) are anti-science when it conflicts with their religious / political ideology. Getting climate science from Cato is like getting information on race relations from the KKK.

> ...Organic Foods is just another type of big business just like Exxon Mobil.

So who is going to benefit from organic farming - apart from individual farmers and the environment that we all need for a healthy life? Which mega-corporation is going to rake in millions of $$$s from organic produce? How does it compare to the profits of Monsanto and Dow Chemicals?

David

Come on..you don't really believe that the organic revolution isn't about big business do you?

It may not have started that way...but it sure has ended up that way....

Nothing against people who grow and consume their own...

www.wholefoodsmarket.com

Even better than recycling; Save money and the Earth and be clean at the same time. All businesses can do this. Get serious and add Bathroom Bidet Sprayers to all your bathrooms. Available at www.bathroomsprayers.com with these you won't even need toilet paper any more, just a towel to dry off! Don't worry, you can still have toilet paper, you can even make it the soft stuff and not feel guilty since you're using so little. It's cheap and can be installed without a plumber; and runs off the same water line to your toilet. You'll probably pay for it in a few months of toilet paper savings. Now we're talking green and helping the environment without any pain. As for water use a drought is always a concern and must be dealt with prudently but please remember that in the big picture the industrial water users always far exceed the water use of household users and in the case of toilet paper manufacture it is huge. The pollution and significant power use from that manufacturing process also contributes to global warming so switching to a hand bidet sprayer and lowering your toilet paper use is very green in multiple ways.

You're committing the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. You're alleging that because some people give money to Cato, then Cato publishes material to back their position. Do people give you money to publish the content on this blog, or do they give you money and subscribe because they agree with you?

Isn't it possible that those people give money to Cato because they agree with Cato's libertarian position, and that your conspiracy theory is nonsense?

Cato's climate change publications are primarily from Pat Michaels, a UVA climatologist who publishes a wealth of peer-reviewed scientific literature on climate change; he's a former state climatologist from Virginia (for a very long time) and a member of the IPCC, and very much a scientist. They've also published stuff from Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor of meteorology. He's a scientist, too.

The problem isn't Cato's lack of science. Indeed, Cato's scholars acknowledge that man made climate change is real. The problem is government (and an uninformed public) accepting absurdly worst-case computer models as fact when there is a lot of contradictory evidence, or when opportunity cost isn't considered.

The same thing happened 50-odd years ago when a lot of very smart people convinced the government and the public of some scientific 'facts', and the state took the ball and ran with it. That was the 'science' of eugenics.

Ideas have consequences. There are thousands of scientists who don't think climate change should be a priority of government. The costs of things like cap and trade or reducing green house gas emissions to certain levels will cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars (at least) and *might* curb climate change by a degree or two in a hundred years (no one really knows). What if that fervor (and cost) were used to something proven to actually help people, like fighting off malaria, which kills between one and three million people every year?

Michaels produces only a wealth of distortion and lies: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/pat_mic...

Lindzen has no more credibility: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

Yeah, I hear about these "thousands of scientists" a lot - both from global warming deniers and creationists. Never seen any evidence though.

I'll listen to the massively overwhelming scientific consensus and peer reviewed science before paying attention to a libertarian propaganda organisation. In fact, I can't imagine anything that I would listen to libertarian on: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libe...

It's absolutely clear what the issue and what we must do to solve it: stop pumping billions of tons of carbon pollution in to the atmosphere every year. And we need to do that *now*. Your Bjorn Lomborg-approved shtick about malaria is not persuasive.

Is that your evidence that "Organic Foods is just another type of big business just like Exxon Mobil."? A small organic grocer?! Are you serious? By that logic anyone that sells anything is evidence of a conspiracy.

No, the only multi-billion corporations involved in this game are the GMO companies - and they have a long and sordid history of doing whatever they can to protect their market and increase their profits. They sue farmers, bribe officials, run false advertising and pollute the environment - all in the name of the mighty dollar and the quest to control our food: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Company

P.S. While we're waiting for my first reply to clear moderation (includes links): 'Denier' means more than just denying that global warming is real. It also means those who deny the consequences or the urgency with which we must act. Cato and the lying, astroturfing propagandists it employs are *Deniers*.

Nice try, but Exxon admitted they'd funded deniers and said they would stop.

Sorry David you are obviously far more educated than me on the subject. Not sure if you know that Whole Foods that "small organic grocer" did 2 Billion Dollars in sales last year.

I bet they gave all their profits to an Ashram in Portland. I love the people at Whole Foods they've even got the Davids of the world fooled.

As compared to Safeway at $10 billion for one *quarter*. Or Wal-Mart at $400 billion for 2008.

Regardless, there's no *evidence* of any unethical behaviour from anyone apart from Monsanto and the GMO industry.

wow...Safeway's been around for 50 years and Wal Mart almost as long....Whole Foods has just started...you'll see them grow to 10 billion a quarter in no time at all...

Your logic is flawed..

So, basically, if one sells food that is organically grown, he or she is forbidden to make a big buck out of it?

I don't mind companies racking in big profits, I mind their methods of achieving them. I don't think all big-profit enterprises are corrupt on the outset; I find it entirely believeable that Whole Foods makes money because there's enough people who feel that buying organic foods is better than the alternatives.

Let's remind you of what you said: "...Organic Foods is just another type of big business just like Exxon Mobil."

Your example of 'Organic Foods' is *tiny* in comparison to Exxon - which is a nonsense comparison anyway - they're different industries.

Whole Food Markets is *tiny* in comparison to any of the established names in grocery - so your comparison fails again. You've shown no evidence of corruption from the organic industry, whereas there is mountains of it for the GMO industry as they pollute, litigate and muscle their way around the world. Again you fail to demonstrate what you claim to be true.

It's not *my* logic, reasoning and evidence that is flawed.

P.S. Amongst other things you've failed to work out: there's a 'Reply' button under each comment so that you can respond directly - that way people will know that you've commented to them.

One other thing: if the organic markets are growing, it's because that's what people want. The organic industry is up front and proud. The GMO industry hide themselves, lobbying against food being labelled as GMO. They hide their products through a network of seed companies that have no labelling that tells you they are GMO products.

Why do you think that is?

People do not want GMO.

One other thing: if the organic markets are growing, it's because that's what people want. The organic industry is up front and proud. The GMO industry hide themselves, lobbying against food being labelled as GMO. They hide their products through a network of seed companies that have no labelling that tells you they are GMO products.

Why do you think that is?

People do not want GMO.

I didn't see as against lobbyist only that their were hidden agendas to the video

"Penn and Teller’s main point why organic food is “bullshit†is simply because it “might mean you’re getting your food from giant corporations or China.â€"

Wait. Did you watch the same show I watched? I'm pretty sure they had more main points and I'm also pretty sure that they DID tell us that Alex Avery works for the Hudson Institute.

To me the important point they made was about the fact that if we switch to organic, we won't have enough food to feed the world. Is this important to anybody else?

I'm sorry if the Magicians who are smarter than you hurt your feelings, but instead of providing evidence to support your claim, all you've done is attack their credibility. Be nice and then maybe I'll try your less delicious apples.

> ...if we switch to organic, we won't have enough food to feed the world.

and then:

> ...instead of providing evidence to support your claim...

Spot the hypocrisy?

First, I'm writing a comment, not a blog, so I'm not going to provide pages of citations. And second, the support of my claim is in the video being discussed...or maybe you didn't watch it?

> First, I'm writing a comment, not a blog...

So, one rule for others and a different one for you.

> ...I'm not going to provide pages of citations.

Just one would do. A single, credible citation that provides evidence for your claim - "if we switch to organic, we won't have enough food to feed the world."

Just one.