"You might be a domestic terrorist if:" A look into conspiracy theorist claims about what makes a person a terrorist

Recently in one of skeptics groups that I belong to on Facebook someone posted this picture they found on a conspiracy theorist group:

Apparently conspiracy theorists believe that because some people believe or do certain then that makes them a "terrorist".

This picture is one of the most blatant examples of persecution complex that I have seen in a while and kind of shows the mindset of a conspiracy theorist.

I'm going to go through all of these claims and explain why believing in these things does not make you a domestic terrorist:

You raise/grow your own food

Why would this make you a domestic terrorist? The answer is it doesn't.

Millions of people across the country grow their own food in one way or another, be it either in small plots as a hobby (as my dad does) and as a way to have fresh fruits, herbs, and vegetables, or in greenhouses, or in large fields that provide enough food to feed their entire family. Heck, even the White House has it's own vegetable garden.

If growing your own food made you a domestic terrorist, then why wouldn't the government just go around to everyones' houses and destroy their gardens and green houses? Or pass laws that make it illegal to grow your own food? They wouldn't because growing your own food is harmless and effects no one.

Oppose GMOs

Opposing GMO foods does not make you a terrorist. It might make you someone who doesn't understand the science behind GMO foods, or someone who has embraced anti-GMO propaganda, but not understanding science or embracing some group's claims without questioning them doesn't make you a terrorist.

If opposing GMO foods made you a terrorist then there would be no organic foods in any grocery store or farmers market anywhere, and no laws meant to either label GMO foods or prevent them from being grown or sold would ever be proposed, much less passed.

Prefer natural medicines

If this was true then how come the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a official United States government agency that researches and promotes things like natural medicines, even exists?

While the government does restrict multiple types of alternative and natural medicines, this is only because some of them are dangerous, or the manufactures claim it can do something when infact it cannot.

If natural medicines made a person a terrorist then all forms of alternative medicine would be illegal and people who sale it or even promote it would be going to prison.

Refuse vaccinations

Refusing vaccines does not make you a terrorist as there no laws that say that you have to get vaccinated. However, it does make you dangerous to others, as well as your own self as it puts you at greater risk for getting infected with a disease that could kill you, as well as spreading said disease to others who either weren't vaccinate because they also choose not to (or their parents choose not to have them vaccinated) or a person whom couldn't get vaccinate for various medical reasons, or someone whom did get vaccinated but the vaccine did not take affect for some reason.

Have a Ron Paul bumper sticker

This does not make you a terrorist, it just makes you someone who likes Ron Paul and refuses to accept the reality that he'll never be President, and someone who doesn't know when to take a bumper sticker off of their car.

Question 9/11

Believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories, or any other conspiracy theory for that matter, doesn't make you a terrorist. If it did then people like Alex Jones and Mike Adams would be in prison, and their websites, as well as any other websites that promote 9/11 conspiracy theories, would be shut down. This also include Youtube videos, Facebook pages, and Twitter accounts that also promote 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Object to geo-engineering

I would ask what exactly do they mean by this, but I think they're talking about chemtrails.

Being opposed to geo-engineering chemtrails does not make you a terrorist, but this is due to the fact chemtrails don't exist, and even if they did, there are no laws that says that you cannot object to it.

However, if you threaten to shoot down a plane because you believe that it's spraying these imaginary chemicals, then you are a terrorist, or atleast someone whom has the potential to become one.

Oppose war

How does opposing war make you a terrorist? If anything it makes you the exact opposite, unless you oppose war via violence.

Support the Constitution

Why would supporting the Constitution make you a terrorist? I can't think of any reason why.

Certain people and places may not like it when a person expresses their rights as outlined in the Constitution, and have even tried to stop people from doing so, but whenever taken to court those people and places almost always lose.

If supporting the Constitution and standing up for your rights made you a terrorist then the people who stand up for their rights would always lose court cases where argue their Constitutional rights, and would go to prison for doing so.

Reject the NWO and Agenda 21

Rejecting the NWO does not make you a terrorist, but this is mostly due to the fact that the NWO does not exist.

As for rejecting Agenda 21 this also does not make you a terrorist. At worst it might make you someone that believes in the conspiracy theories about Agenda 21, but that only makes you uninformed about what Agenda 21 is, as well as someone that only listens to what other conspiracy theorists say it is rather than looking it up and reading about it yourself.

Believe your gov't is corrupt

I guess that means that I'm a terrorist! Because I think the government is corrupt.

Almost everyone believes that the government is corrupt, and there is a very good reason for that. Because it is, or atleast certain parts of it is.

If believing that the government was corrupt made you a terrorist, then you would never ever hear or read about in the news about any sort of corruption that goes on in the government because if a news organization did report on government corruption they would be labeled a terrorist group and shut down.

I am Anti-Organic Foods

Anyone whom has read this blog is probably aware that I don't like the Anti-GMO movement. I find the movement to be highly deceptive and uses propaganda and fear mongering in order to get people to buy "organic" food, and to reject all GMO foods no matter what.

Normally in spite their BS I would still have bought and eaten organic foods, not because I believed it was healthier for you (although I admit I at one time I did believe that) but because it tasted a little better, but now knowing more facts about the Anti-GMO movement and the extremes that they have gone to, and about organic food and it's sustainability, as well as the organic food industry itself, I can no longer consciously buy and/or eat organic foods. To put it bluntly I am now Anti-Organic Foods, and I have several reasons (besides what I just what said here) why.

My first and foremost reasons for why I am now Anti-Organic Foods is because of the Anti-GMO movement itself and what it's highly deceptive propaganda and fear mongering has done, which is to cause governments around the world to pass completely moronic Anti-GMO laws that is based off of fear rather than legitimate science, and has at times because of these laws hampered research into GMO foods, and to cause normally intelligent to reject GMO foods without any reason other than what lies the Anti-GMO movement has told them.

Another reason why I am now Anti-Organic Foods is because of the deaths that have been caused by the Anti-GMO movement and their propaganda, particularly in developing in certain developing countries where the leaders of those countries actually rejected food donations because they were lead to believe (most notably by Greenpeace) that the food may have contain GMO foods and was (according to these Anti-GMO groups) poisonous. This type of deception has resulted in thousands of deaths, and possibly more.

My third reason why I have rejected organic foods is because of the physical destruction caused by the Anti-GMO movement, particularly of experimental GMO food crops due to the perception that these crops were dangerous. This destruction has caused millions of dollars worth of damage, not to mention the lose of valuable research data. The fact that many Anti-GMO groups (including Greenpeace) often praise this destruction, and have been accused of directly or indirectly responsible of being the cause of such destruction only makes the whole Anti-GMO movement look so much worse to me.

Now my fourth reason for rejecting organic foods isn't because of the Anti-GMO movement, but because of organic foods itself.

Organic foods are luxury foods. That's all they are. They are not any healthier or better for you, they just taste better. They won't solve the world's food supply problems, and infact will make them worse due to organic foods having lower crop yields than GMO crops, and also not being able to be grown in as many places as GMO crops can.

Organic crops are also not as environmentally friendly as they're made out to be and require far more land to grow on than GMO crops do, and require far more pesticides inorder to keep insects away than GMO crops (and despite what you have been told a lot of farmers that grow organic foods actually do use pesticides, and lots of it).

My fifth reason for rejecting organic foods is because of the organic food industry itself, particularly with the self created perception that the organic food industry is a small and humble force. It is not.

Some of the farmers in the organic food industry might be small and humble, but the industry as a whole is a huge, multi-billion dollar industry (Whole Foods Market, one of the largest organic foods supermarkets, made over nine billion in 2010) so in my opinion it's very deceptive how the whole organic food industry has made itself out to be.

My final reason why I have rejected organic foods is because of the self imposed perception that organic foods are ethical.

In my opinion organic foods are not ethical. It's perceived ethicalness is based off of lies created by a group do-gooder no-nothings who believe that because something that is created by a multi-billion dollar corporation then it must be evil and dangerous. This type of belief has lead to both the creation of the most outrageous lies and have been the cause of many deaths, all inorder to force people to eat luxury foods.

Because of all this I have decided to avoid eating organic foods when and where I can. I just don't feel right eating something that is based off of lies.

10 reasons why the Anti-GMO and the Anti-vaccination movement are a lot alike.

The Anti-GMO movements and Anti-vaccination movements are probably two of the biggest and most well known pseudoscience movements out there, with millions of people that adhere to their claims.

Besides the fact that both groups do have millions of proponents world wide and promote pseudoscience, both groups are a lot alike in other ways as well. Infact I've come up with about ten different reasons why they are so much alike, starting with the fact that...

Proponents of both get very emotional when you criticize and/or debunk them.

Ever get into an online discussion with someone whom either promotes Anti-vaccination or Anti-GMO nonsense, and you start to tell them what they claim is BS, and tell them why what they are claiming is BS? If you've answered yes then you know what usually ends up happening, and that is that they tend to go off the deep end and use all of these made up "facts" and logical fallacies and conspiracy theories, and in the end threats and accusations of being a shill are often made.

A proponent of one tends to be a proponent of the other.

It shouldn't be to surprising, but usually if someone is an Anti-GMO proponent, they usually tend to be an Anti-vaccination proponent as well, and vice-verse.

While this isn't necessarily true many websites that promote Anti-vaccination nonsense also tend to promote Anti-GMO nonsense as well. Infact some websites that claim to be "natural health" websites promote both equally instead of one overshadowing the other. Also, another thing about proponents of both are...

They tend to promote alternative medicine.

It shouldn't be to surprising that people in the Anti-vaccination movement are big proponents of alternative medicine, but it shouldn't also be to surprising that people in the Anti-GMO movement are also big proponents of alternative medicine as well.

Infact many people in the Anti-GMO movement will, besides just promote the usual alternative medicine nonsense, claim that organic foods can heal you of just about anything and everything as well (including stuff that doesn't even exist).

The only papers they've ever had published in creditable scientific journals have been debunked and retracted.

There are lots of studies that have been published over the years about the "dangers" of vaccines and GMO foods, and while the number of papers published may look impressive to some the reality is that it isn't, especially when you consider the fact almost all of these papers are published in "scientific journals" that a person pays to be published in.

Infact the only Anti-vaccination and Anti-GMO papers that I know of that have ever been published in credible scientific journals are the Wakefield study (published in the Lancet) and the Séralini study (published in Food and Chemical Toxicology) both of which have been formally retracted by the respective journals that they were published in after it was found that both studies data was founded off of both unethical experiments and fraudulent data, and they were only retracted long after both studies had been thoroughly debunked.

They both claim the same things about the products in terms of health effects.

Both the Anti-GMO and Anti-vaccination movements not only claim that both GMO foods and vaccines are bad for you and cause a large amount of health problems (all of which have been proven to be untrue), but they also claim that they cause the same health problems!

Both most notably are claimed to cause autism, but both are also claimed to cause the spreading of diseases, and increases in infant mortality, and sterility, and cancer, and who knows what else. It almost seems like Anti-GMO and Anti-vaccination movements are claiming that GMO foods and vaccines causes something new every week.

They both claim that the products have ingredients in them that they do not.

One of the biggest and most obvious BS things that both the Anti-vaccination and the Anti-GMO movement tend to do is that they both claim that the respective products that they believe are bad for you also contain ingredients that infact they do not contain at all.

For the Anti-vaccination movement they sometimes claim that vaccines contain the remains of aborted human fetuses (they do not) and the Anti-GMO movement claims that GMO foods contain animal DNA in them (they do not). While these are the more outrageous claims made by both respective movements, both also claim that the products that they are protesting against contain other chemicals in them that infact they do not.

Both groups claim that there is little to no regulation in either industry.

One of the main "claimed" reasons by so many people in the Anti-GMO and Anti-vaccination movements is that they believe that GMO foods and vaccines are dangerous because they believe that there is very little to no testing and safety regulations what so ever in either industry.

In fact this couldn't be further from the truth for either one. Both the vaccine industry and the GMO foods industry are heavily regulated and go through numerous testing stages, and have to go through numerous government agencies before they are able to put their products onto market.

Both groups make claims of a conspiracy.

Both the Anti-GMO and Anti-vaccination movements claim that the respective industries that they are protesting are involved in some kind of conspiracy. These conspiracy theories range from the plausible, but still disproven corporate greed and not caring about the health of others and putting out a product that has very little to no testing type of conspiracy theories, to some type of New World Order mass depopulation type of conspiracy theory (which if true then they've done a horrible job at it).

Also both groups claim that there is a conspiracy to suppress "information" (i.e. Anti-GMO and Anti-vaccination claims) about the "truth" about GMO foods and vaccines. If this happened to be true then whoever is suppose to be suppressing this "information" has clearly done a terrible job at it because there are thousands of Anti-GMO and Anti-vaccination websites, not to mention multiple groups that promote their beliefs.

Both groups have caused deaths.

One of the dark yet well known little secrets of both of these groups is that both groups have caused the deaths of thousands of people.

For the Anti-GMO movement the deaths caused by their propaganda comes in the form of people in developing countries starving to death because the leaders in some of these countries refused to accept food donations because they believed that the donations contained GMO foods (wouldn't matter if it did or didn't) and believed the Anti-GMO movement's claims that such food were poisonous.

For the Anti-vaccination movement the deaths caused by their propaganda comes in the form of children who's parents believed the Anti-vaccination movement's claims and didn't vaccinate their children, and their children got an infection from a disease that was completely preventable if they had been vaccinated, and the child died from that disease. Also the deaths are by children who were to young to be vaccinated, or couldn't be vaccinate for some medical reasons, but got a disease from a child that was infact old enough to be vaccinated but wasn't, and they died because of some other parent's carelessness.

While this fact about both groups are often ignored by both groups, it is not however ignored by skeptics and critics of the Anti-GMO and the Anti-vaccination movements.

Both groups don't talk about the good things what they protest have done.

Both groups just love to talk about all the "bad" stuff (i.e. made up stuff) about GMO foods and vaccines. What they don't tell you is all of the good things that GMO foods and vaccines have brought us, such a extending our life expectancy, and suppressing and even eliminating certain diseases, and over all improving our quality of life, as well as helping prevent people from dying.

Infact talking about all of the good things about GMO foods and vaccines almost seems like a kind of blasphemy to these Anti-GMO and Anti-vaccination groups...

Frankenbull: GMOs run amuck, or a deception of the Anti-GMO movement

Recently I saw an article on a conspiracy theorist website concerning what they claimed was a genetically modified bull called the Belgian Blue (read the article here).

As you can clearly see that is one right big bull (although most bovine species do tend to be big creatures) and looks like a result direct genetic manipulation. Also, the way the article is worded (and the fact that the title of the article is "FRANKENBULL: GIGANTIC GMO BULLS Are Now A REALITY") makes it sound like the species was only recently developed, and that is was the result of direct genetic manipulation. This is not true for either one.

While the species is the result of a kind of genetic manipulation, it is not however the result direct genetic manipulation (which involves directly manipulating a life form's DNA) but instead indirect genetic manipulation through the use of selective breeding.

Infact the breed itself was first identified in the early 19th century, and the modern beef breed was developed in the 1950's through the use of artificial insemination. So it is not a new breed, and was not developed by messing with it's DNA (which is technology that scientists did not have back then). The article ofcourse doesn't mention any of this.

Heck, one of the photos in the article is also clearly not a modern photo either, and appears to be from atleast from either the 50's or the 60's:

Now by the standards of the Anti-GMO movement this freakish looking bovine is not a GMO animal because it's genetic manipulation is not the result of manipulating it's DNA, but the result of genetic manipulation through selective breeding (which almost all other species of domesticated plants and animals that are used for food are the result of in one form or another) and by their standards is okay to eat (which apparently it is).

The article is clearly being deceptive, and was only posted inorder to scare people away from GMO foods by making it appear that if scientists are willing to create something like that through direct genetic manipulation, then who knows what they are willing and able to do with the rest of our food. Infact you'd pretty much have live off the land and eat nothing but wild plants and animals inorder to have a diet that consisted of no foods that are the result of genetic manipulation of one form or another.

If the anti-GMO movement is so blatantly willing to lie about something like this that was so easy to find the truth about and debunk, then who knows what else they're willing to lie about inorder to make GMO foods look dangerous?

11 Reasons why people believe in Pseudoscience

Why do some people believe in pseudoscience?

It's a question that I'm sure that many skeptics have asked when they encounter someone who believes in something that has been discredited for years (sometime centuries).

Doing a little bit of research into the subject, as well as a bit of thinking, I've come up with quite a few reasons why some people actually believe in pseudoscience.

11. It goes along with their beliefs.

Due to either religious or personal beliefs (or a combination of both) some people will believe in the pseudoscientific explanation for something, rather than the scientific explanation for something, if the pseudoscientific explanation goes along with their beliefs. Sometimes this will even go so far as to out right reject and ignore the scientific explanation, so long as the pseudoscientific explanation goes along with their beliefs, and the scientific explanation does not.

Examples of this would be people who have strong biblical beliefs rejecting the theory of evolution in place of intelligent design because intelligent design goes along with the creation story, or people who reject modern medicine in place of alternative medicine or believe in claims that vaccines cause autism because they believe pharmaceutical companies are evil, or people who believe that GMO foods are bad for you because they believe that organic foods are better for you and that GMO foods aren't tested or regulated.

10. Real science can be difficult to understand.

I have to admit, there are some things in science that are just difficult to understand, and unless you already have a decent amount of knowledge about a certain scientific field, you probably aren't going to understand whats going on if someone is discussing something about that scientific field.

Pseudoscience on the other hand is usually much easier to understand than real science, and because pseudoscience tends to be much easier to understand than real science, it can attract some people who have become frustrated with real science and their inability to understand it.

9. It sounds more awesome.

Besides being difficult to understand, science can also be boring to some people.

Because some people find the real scientific explanations to certain things to be boring and uninteresting, some people will go over to the pseudoscientific explanations, because it sounds a lot more exciting.

An example of this would be the explanation by ancient astronaut theorists that the Great Pyramid at Giza was constructed by aliens using their advanced technology for reasons unknown. Sounds a lot more exciting than the actual scientific explanation in that it was a giant monument and tomb constructed over a 20 year period by thousands of people for some egotistical Pharaoh.

8. It sounds more logical.

For some people that don't have a good understanding of both how science and logic works, a pseudoscientific explanation can actually sound a lot more logical than an actual scientific and/or logical explanation for certain things.

Lets take crop circles for example. Some people believe that crop circles are made by aliens as a way to send us a message. To some people this sounds more logical than the actual explanation of a bunch of pranksters getting together and creating these geometric shapes in wheat fields using rope and 2x4s.

7. It makes them feel smart.

Because real science can be hard to understand, it can make certain people feel dumb when they try to understand it and just can't. On the other hand because many things in pseudoscience are easy for most people to understand, and because of the false assumption that it is real science, it can make people feel smart when they understand it.

Because of the fact that they can understand it (and because they feel that it makes them look smart because they understand it) they might be more inclined to believe in it.

6. They were taught it and have yet to be exposed to the facts.

Most of the time when a person believes in a pseudoscience it's because it either makes them feel smart due to their lack of knowledge in the field of science, or they're just being stubborn in their beliefs that don't go along with the scientific and/or logical explanation. Sometimes of course it could also be that they were taught the pseudoscientific explanation, and never was exposed to the facts.

This could come in two different means: First, it could be because of an overbearing parent who refuses to allow their child to learn the scientific explanation for something in place of their own personal and/or religious beliefs (as is the case with many fundamentalist Christian parents who homeschool their children and only teaches them "intelligent design"). Second, it could be because what a person believes to a science fact is really a scientific misconception and they've had no reason to find out if it was true or not.

5. A celebrity believes in it.

Celebrities, much like the rest of us, are only human, and because of this many celebrities believe in some pseudosciences. Because celebrities can also be so influential to certain people, and can give off the misconception that they are smart, it can make some people believe that it's cool or okay to believe in that pseudoscience because this celebrity believes in it, and that it must be true because they believe that celebrity is smart, which may or may not be the case.

Most of the time this harmless because the pseudoscience the celebrity believes in is harmless. Sometimes it's not.

4. A scientist endorses it.

Much like celebrities, scientists are also humans as well. Because of this sometimes scientists will endorse a pseudoscience too.

Because an actual scientist, or doctor, or engineer officially endorses a pseudoscience, it can cause some people to not only believe in that pseudoscience, but even refuse to believe otherwise despite a majority of scientists, or doctors, or engineers who say otherwise and can back up their reasons why.

3. It was once considered real science.

There are several different types of pseudosciences out there that at one time were considered to be real sciences, but was either discredited by, or over taken by real science.

Because somethings were once considered to be real science, some people might be inclined to believed that it is still considered to be real science. Or, it could because they don't believe it should be outright abandoned.

2. The possibility it could be real.

There are some pseudosciences that exist not because the subject at hand is real, but because of the possibility that it is real.

Because there are certain pseudoscientific subjects that could be real (no matter how remote) this could lead some people to believing it really is real. Or, this could cause some people to believe in a pseudoscience is real just incase it ever is proven to be real and they don't look like a fool.

1. It goes along with something they are trying to sell.

Sometimes belief in a pseudoscience doesn't just make logical sense to some people, it can also make finical sense as well, especially if they are selling some product or service based on pseudoscience (like alternative medicine). This can be due to the combination of wanting something you're selling to work, and customers telling you that it works.

Anti-Vaccination & Anti-GMO: Proof that bad things do come from "Good Intentions"

Many of you probably already know about the Anti-vaccination and Anti-GMO crowds, and what they stand for. For those that do not, I'll refresh your memories:

The Anti-vaccination crowd claims that vaccines can cause debilitating in children, primarily autism, while the Anti-GMO crowds claim that food from genetically modified plants are unhealthy and possibly dangerous.

While I know that both of these groups believe very strongly that what they are saying is true, and that they are spreading whatever they think is true because they only have "good intention" and think what they're doing is right, the reality is what they are doing is very wrong.

Besides the fact that the information that both of these groups put out tends to be out right false, or is based upon outdated information, they don't seem to realize the real damage they are actually doing.

For the Anti-vaccination, the damage is very obvious.

The spreading of the anti-vaccine propaganda has caused some parents to become unnecessarily fearful of vaccines, which in turn has cause those parents to choose to not allow their children to get vaccinated, which has caused the rise of many illnesses among children that I had not even heard of anyone getting when I was in school, and that for the most part I didn't even think could kill someone because I had never heard of anyone dying from these illnesses before, more or less know someone who died from something like the measles.

As a result of this combination propaganda and paranoia, hundreds of children, if not more so, have died, and thousands of children have gotten sick unnecessarily because their parents failed to get them vaccinated, or because they were to young to get vaccinated, and they got sick from another child that was sick with something that could been prevent with a vaccine shot.

Then there is the Anti-GMO crowd, which while might not seem as harmful, could actually be worse.

While there is this popular belief that GMO foods are harmful, untested, and unregulated, all of these are false as GMO foods are heavily tested, heavily regulated, and are no more harmful than organic foods.

While organic food itself isn't actually bad, the people in the Anti-GMO crowd wants to ultimately ban GMO foods, and that is bad thing because the world population can not sustain it's current levels on organic food alone. In fact only 2/3 of that current world population would be able to sustain itself on organic food (and that's the high end).

The fact is that the world hunger problems are bad enough as they are, and would be far worse if the Anti-GMO crowd had it their way and the only food we grew was organic food.

I know that both groups have good intentions, and that both think what they are doing is for the betterment of human kind, but the fact is that they only things these two groups are doing are bringing needless suffering and death, and instead of being saviors of humanity, they are harming it.

Instead of GMO labeling laws, perhaps what we need is...

There has been a lot of debate recently over whether or not food companies should legally be required to label their foods as being either GMOs (Genetically Modified Organism) or not if they happen to actually be GMOs.

Supporters of these laws claim that this would give consumers the ability to know what they are buying, and whether or not they are actually buying something that is organic or not.

Critics on the other hand claim that such laws are unnecessary and even excessive, since it is well established that most foods are in fact either considered GMOs (technically speaking all foods are actually GMOs in one way or another) or at least would not be considered organic by many people in the organic food community, and that many people who do produce organic foods already label their products as being organic.

While this labeling law debate is sure to not go away any time soon, I do wonder if perhaps the anti-GMO crowd is going about this the wrong way. Perhaps instead of there being GMO labeling laws, there should be  organic food labeling laws instead.

While the GMO food industry is heavily regulated by the Food & Drug Administration (despite what many people in the anti-GMO crowd believes) there is actually very little regulation for the organic food industry.

In the United States there are no laws that says what foods are considered organic, and what foods are not considered organic. In fact anyone can actually claim that the food that they are producing is organic, when in fact what the food that is being produced is not considered organic by anyone's standards...

While the United States Department of Agriculture does have a organic foods certification program that is regulated, there is no legal requirement in the U.S. that says a company has to go through this certification program before they start to claim their food product is organic, and no one can do anything about because there are no laws that says you can't do that.

It's even possible that some food producers will claim that their food is organic when it really isn't simply as a selling point, and so that they have an excuse to sell their product at a higher cost than what it really should be selling for in order to make a larger profit...

Also, the fact that there is no legal requirement for what can and can not be labeled organic foods might cause people not to wash off fruits and vegetables because they might not think it's necessary if they believe it's organic (this should be done anyways regardless if it really is organic or not as the USDA actually allows the use of pesticides for it's organic food certification program, and it's just common sense to do that anyways).

What really is needed is not GMO labeling laws, but organic food labeling laws, because not only would it be far easier and cheaper to implement (simply put, if someone doesn't believe that their product will receive a legal certification of being organic, they're probably not going to waste the time and money to try to get their product legally certified as organic in the first place when they can go on and sell it as it is, and they most likely won't claim that their product is organic because they won't want to face the legal circumstances if they do and they are not suppose to) and it would also allow consumers who choose to buy organic foods to know whether or not the food they are buying is in fact truly organic, and not just something some company claims.

At the very least it would help prevent companies from making fraudulent claims about their products...

Debunking the Anti-Monsanto/Anti-GMO claims

On May 25, a local group held a protest near where I live to protest Monsanto and GMO foods.

The protest itself, while larger than what I actually expected, wasn't as large as what it could have been, with maybe only about 50 to 60 people attending.

Now about a week before this protest occurred someone was going the area and putting up some posters on lamp post and electric post not only advertising the protest, but also making several claims against both Monsanto and GMO foods.

I've looked into these claims that were made, and this is what I have found:

1. Monsanto fights labeling laws.

This is true [read here] but only to a certain extent, and there are a lot of other companies and groups (including scientists) that oppose these laws because many of them consider them to be unfair, and/or leaves to many loop holes, and many opponents also claim that these laws are really attempts to out right ban GMO foods.

Also, when the people of California were given a chance to vote into law Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, the voters rejected it, so really you can't actually blame Monsanto about that, because when given the chance, the people rejected such laws.

2. Monsanto's propriety and legal actions harm small farmers.

Monsanto has, since the mid-1990's, filled 145 suits against individual US farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed, and while this may sound like a lot, this is actually a very small number in comparison to thousands of individual, independent farmers in the US.

Also, only 11 of these suits actually went to trial, all of which Monsanto won.

3. Scientists' studies show severe damage to GMO-feed animals.

There was a study in 2012 by Gilles-Eric Seralini that claimed to show that rats feed GMO corn increased cancer rates in these rats compared to rats that were not feed GMO corn. This study has been highly criticized for certain unscientific methods (such as the failure to record the amounts of food the rats were feed and their growth rates) and has pretty much been debunked. [read here, here, and here]

4. Monsanto's Agent Orange and DDT contaminate food crops and villagers abroad.

Agent Orange was only used between 1965 to 1970 by the US military in Vietnam (before then they used a herbicide called Agent Blue). Even though this was true, you really can't blame Monsanto because they are not the ones who actually used it. It was various governments around the world who used it. Monsanto (along with Dow Chemical) just made the stuff.

As for DDT, most countries have been banning the stuff since the 1960's for agricultural use, and again, Monsanto is not the only company that made DDT, and it doesn't even make it anymore because of the 1972 US ban.

5. Monsanto falsely advertised it's Roundup as "biodegradable."

In 2007 Monsanto was convicted in France for false advertisement of it's product Roundup as being biodegradable. France is of course the only country that has done this, and some people might even claim that this is the result of France's environmental laws, rather than reality as Glyphosate (the technical name for Roundup) does not bioaccumulate and breaks down rapidly in the environment.

Whether Roundup should be considered biodegradable or not seems to be more of a matter of opinion then fact.

6. Monsanto blocks regulations. It's CEOs are in a revolving door from Monsanto to FDA (ex: Micheal Taylor, current Food Safety Czar).

This is completely false. Micheal Taylor (whomever he is) was never the Food Safety Czar. There has only been one Food Safety Czar, and that was Dr. David Acheson, and he only had that position from 2007 to 2008.

Monsanto can not actually block regulations, all it can do is lobby against laws and regulations that could affect it's business, and there is no "revolving door", so to speak, between Monsanto and the FDA.

7. Consumers rejected Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone in milk.

The rejection of BGH in milk is a matter of consumer opinion, and has nothing to do with facts.

8. 400 scientists and 58 countries conclude that organic farming trumps GMO for sustainable, environmental,  and healthy agriculture. GM crops do not offer increased yields.

While studies have shown that organic farming, if done correctly, can be sustainable and environmentally friendly. If done incorrectly however the impact on the environment will actually be negative, and organic farming still requires more land than conventional farming.

Also, a crop's yield has nothing to do with whether or not it's a GMO, and has everything to do with the farming techniques used, and studies have shown that organic farming yields are actually less than those of conventional farming yields [read here].

9. Monsanto's control of the soy market results in 90% of soy market being GMO.

If Monsanto actually had control of the soy market then 100% of all soy beans would be GMO, not 90% as being claimed. Plus if farmers did not want to use Monsanto's soy bean seeds, then they don't have to, as there are other companies that sell soy bean seeds.

10. Allergies skyrocketed as GMO soy entered the system.

While food allergies have increased, and soy allergies are one of the more common food allergies, there is no scientific evidence that links GMO crops with the increase in food allergies.

11. Massive aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia is being used by the U.S. and the Colombian government as a counter-insurgency tactic, contaminating food crops and poisoning villagers.

There has been large aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia by the Colombian government (although there is no evidence that the U.S. actually is doing this to, and only gives support and training), the main purpose of which is to destroy coca plants (the plant which cocaine is extracted from).

While this has come under scrutiny for damaging legal crops and adverse health effects, the main criticism about the program (called Plan Colombia) has been about the cost and effectiveness.

Despite the fact that Roundup is used in this campaign, it doesn't mean that Monsanto is to blame for any damage done, as they are not the ones' spraying Roundup on these places.

Local Earth Day festival: Oh the Woo!

On April 20 my home town held it's annual Earth Day festival.

I walked down to it (since it is near my house, and I walk down to the area where it was held everyday anyways, so that's no problem) and took a look around to see what was going.

There was of course a lot of people selling stuff (clothes, hand made jewelry, etc.), there was activities for kids, and there was the selling and promoting of woo and pseudoscience...

Now there was a lot of promoting of organic foods (which doesn't bother me that much, it's just that there are some things that are claimed about it that are simply not true) and new age stuff, but there was also the promoting of things there that honestly should not have been there.

There was of course first this:

I have no idea what this has to do with Earth Day or conservation. All I know is that you are basically wasting $10 on something that is vague and won't really tell you anything.

Next I saw this:




















It's bad enough that adults go to these fake doctors, but kids???

If your child has any of these problems, don't take them to a chiropractor, take them to a REAL doctor.

Besides, what does any of these things have to with the spine in the first place???

Finally there was this:

Yep, it's the blatant promotion of anti-GMO foods (and the basic promotion Monsanto conspiracy theories, and also thus the promoting of GMO conspiracy theories).

This of course wasn't the only things that promoted woo and pseudoscience (and in my opinion should not have been there) but these three things should never have been allowed to be there at all, because they have nothing to do with either Earth Day, nor the environment, and not only promoted stuff that not only wastes money, but also may be harmful.

There were a few booths there that really were promoting conservation and environmentalism, but they were just drowned out by the people promoting stuff that really had nothing to do with conservation and environmentalism.

Over all the whole event left me with a feeling that it was more about the promoting and selling (quite literally at that) of woo and pseudoscience, and that much of what was there should not have been there, and that the whole event was more of a promoting of the New Age movement, rather than conservation or the environment.

5 Things I've noticed about... Organic Food

There's a lot of things I've notice organic foods and the claims about it, and of all the things I've noticed about organic foods, there are five things about it that really stand out for me.

So here are five things I've noticed about organic food:

5. It's expensive.

Organic food cost an awful lot, and in some cases twice as much as non-organic foods, and unless you are very well off, it can get expensive real quick and make a real hit on a households budget.

Even if organic food were to cost only 10% more than conventional food, the expense can still add pretty quickly, even if not all the food you buy is organic, just some of your food.

4. It's not as environmentally friendly as one might think.

Due to the sheer fact that organic farming doesn't produce as high of a yield of crops per acre as with regular farming, if organic farming was done nation wide (or world wide for that matter) over regular farming, then a lot more land would be needed to grow crops in order to feed everyone, thus things like deforestation would increase in order to make open land to grow crops on, and to raise animals for meat on.

3. There's no set guide lines for what's considered organic.

There is really no set of criteria or laws and regulations for what can be considered and labeled organic food, and also what is considered to be organic to one person might not be considered organic to another person.

Also, because there is no set criteria or guide lines for what is considered organic, a farmer could claim what they are growing is organic, but in reality is not by most anyone's standards, and could be claimed to be organic to only be used as a selling point to get people to buy their product.

2. The benefits don't outweigh the costs.

Studies have shown that organic foods is no more healthier or nutritious than conventional, non-organic foods.

In fact the only real benefits organic foods have over conventional foods is that sometimes organic foods tastes better, and that organically raised meat animals do have a much lower chance of getting certain types diseases that results from eating food made with animal by products, but it doesn't prevent animals from getting certain types of diseases that could be prevented through the use of antibiotics. Some people could even argue that not giving an animal antibiotics is a form of animal cruelty.

1. It's not really organic.

Most people who prefer organic foods over conventional foods will tell you that organic foods must be free of genetic modifications, but the thing about that is that most of our basic foods have been genetically modified at one point in time or another, either through crossbreeding, cross pollination, or just simple crop and animal selection.

Most of our modern basic foods are the result of some type of man-made genetic modifications. The only real difference is that it wasn't done in a laboratory using modern scientific equipment.