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

penn-and-teller-bullshit

Penn Jillette and Teller, from the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! TV show, calls in the latest episode organic food for “bullshit” (~~see video below~~). 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.”

But what Penn and Teller fail to mention is that the so called “Food Policy Analyst Expert”, Alex Avery, is paid by the Hudson Institute. The Hudson Institute is an American conservative, religious and free market think tank. Simply put, they are corporate lobbyists. And the prestigious-sounding Hudson Institute is funded by giant corporations such as Monsanto, the leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) food.

You also shouldn’t forget that Penn and Teller are members of the Cato Institute, which is another libertarian corporate think tank funded by such fine corporations as ExxonMobil. The Cato Institute is known for spreading and funding anti-scientific climate denialism and misinformation.

But this is not the first time Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit!” show receives criticism, and especially not when they cover environmental topics. In season one, aired 2003, Penn and Teller claims that the global warming crisis was created by “hysterical hippies and environmentalists”. Their biased and misinformed global warming episode has since then been criticized and debunked. Logical Science has listed and debunked the claims Penn and Teller made in the episode:

“In Episode 13, season 1 of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! they try to prove the global warming crisis, among other things, was created by the out of control imagination of hysterical hippies and environmentalists. This is why the episode is titled “Environmental Hysteria”. We would just like to point out that Penn Jillette is a research fellow of the ExxonMobil and Industry funded CATO institute which has strong minarchist leanings. This gives Penn Jillete a conflict of interest when it comes to any topic that might require government regulation. During the show he puts Tobacco and Oil funded lobbyists against hippie college protesters. If a fair match was their intent they should have those lawyers up against any of the scientists on this massive list. Granted the show was officially about “hysteria” and not science itself but that doesn’t excuse them for grossly misrepresenting a very strong scientific consensus and providing facts thats are demonstrably false. The following is a quoted, sourced, and time stamped point by point analysis of their show. It will focus on the facts presented by Penn & Teller’s “experts”"

Another debunked claim by Penn and Teller is that recycling paper would pollute more than making new paper. This is a false claim:

“Recycling also helps prevent pollution. For example, recycling paper instead of making it from new material generates 74 percent less air pollution and uses 50 percent less water.

Simply put: Don’t trust a magician!

thinkst

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).

GreenBlog

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

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?

DavidCOG

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

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

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

Got a source for this anecdotal evidence?

Who Cares?

Who cares who funds whom? At least they are backing it up with some numbers. The only scientists who will work for free are kids in high school who have homework to do.

Fact: Big corporations are in on organic farms
Fact: China supplies the US with organic food. I'm not touching that.

Why is it such a big deal that a guy who is paid through a corporate organization (oh noes1!!1!) is saying it? Would you be more comfortable if some 14 year old was presenting it in a school fair?
http://profiles.google.com/homerjay422 Max Kelly

Too bad you didnt make a rebuttal for a single one of their points during the episode. All of their points were factual statements!

Idiot.

Organic food saves millions of lives every year in third-world countries because of its amazing ability to grow in arid conditions. They also taste better and are waaayy cheaper.

So keep mindlessly buying organic foods, hipster!

davidcog

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.

thinkst

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?

DavidCOG

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.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

“I’ll listen to the massively overwhelming scientific consensus and peer reviewed science before paying attention to a libertarian propaganda organisation.”

For an Ivory tower Dweller who likes to dole out an absolutist and wholly anti-scientific edict on what does and doesn’t qualify as scientific research, you’re piss-poor at actually providing any sources or doing much of anything to back up your claims.
Y’know, apart from “THIS POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IS DIFFERENT FROM THE DOGMA I WAS INDOCTRINATED WITH, ERGO IT’S WRONG!”

“I’ll listen to the massively overwhelming scientific consensus and peer reviewed science before paying attention to a libertarian propaganda organisation.”
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

“”I’ll listen to the massively overwhelming scientific consensus and peer reviewed science before paying attention to a libertarian propaganda organisation.” ”

Translation: “I’ll rely on political dogma and Straw Man tactics to obfuscate any and all science that refutes my propaganda-fueled beliefs.”
As you yourself said, where IS this alleged evidence?

” In fact, I can’t imagine anything that I would listen to libertarian on”

Pffft. Yeah, you’re right. We’re SO much better off in the hands of Marxists/Socialists/Regressives who have an anachronistic fetish for a totalitarian system of collectivist control whereby everybody is forcibly made to behave the way a small oligarchy of Left Wingers thinks they should made to behave.

You’re nothing more than a modern day Trofim Lysenko.

DavidCOG

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*.

j

Those deniers have been denying that “the world will end in 10 years unless we act IMMEDIATELY”…..for about 30+ years or so?

Anonymous

Just so you know, I’m a scientist and a libertarian, so how’s that for you being stereotypical. I definitely wouldn’t discount science, and while I personally hate the Environmental Protection Act, I am a believer of global warming. Maybe you should think before you include everyone of a certain type of political affiliation as being exactly the same.

Also, just to point out what the blogger didn’t mention, is that if we went to all organic food, we would only be able to feed 4 billion people, or less than 2/3 of the world’s population. Genetic food is not bad for health, the environment, etc. It’s necessary, it’s beneficial, and anyone trying to stop food advances is self-centered, and needs to be stopped.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_H5XWD4KPG6IVNU3V7AFSDJ6DFE j

I would do a bit more research on Genetic food not being bad for your health. And skip past the misinformation that is supplied by Monsanto and companies that spend millions of dollars trying to convince you otherwise.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

“I would do a bit more research on Genetic food not being bad for your health. And skip past the misinformation that is supplied by Monsanto and companies that spend millions of dollars trying to convince you otherwise.
”

Alternately, you could do some research of the actual science from actual chemists, microbiologists, ETC (like, say, Dan Agin http://books.google.com/books?id=VxcjOL1j8iAC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=dan+agin+gm+food&source=bl&ots=H1PH3Q3Auc&sig=1qqzXUgC0MENJL3pNLDXGldNZkY&hl=en&ei=IHpJToemD8OhtwfwqIjgBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false) instead of misinformation supplied by front groups like the OCA who have very clear, very tangible financial and political ties to the organic industry.

meanagreen

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.

davidcog

> …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?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

“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”

GEE, I DUNNO, WHOLE FOODS, THE OCA, TRADER JOES, ET AL SEEM TO DO PRETTY WELL FOR THEMSELVES. GEE.

Seems like the problem is that you’re judging organic foods off of the fuzzy fantasy you want it to be, instead of the reality.

I bet you’re also one of those types that thinks autism is caused by vaccines and that homeopathy is a grassroots underdog cure-all.

http://www.facebook.se/people/Simon-Leufstedt/585733416 Simon Leufstedt

“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.”

If you are a member of a lobbyist group that spreads lies, misinformation and climate denialism then YES I do believe I have the right to criticize he or she.

“And this website isn't funded by anyone or anything but free love and the “corporate” sponsors.”

Green Blog is funded from my personal pocket as well as from the ads displayed on this website.

meanagreen

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…

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com

DavidCOG

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

Jeffsam9

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 http://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.
meanagreen

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.

DavidCOG

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.

meanagreen

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..

DavidCOG

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.

DavidCOG

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.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

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

Oh, please. Your entire argument is based on the fallacious Left Wing argument that because Subject A is making more money than Subject B, it completely absolves Subject B of any suspicion or wrongdoing of any sort.

DavidCOG

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.

Santtu Luopajärvi

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.
http://www.naturesorganicmarket.com/ sue_29

I didn't see as against lobbyist only that their were hidden agendas to the video
jschultz84

“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.””

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.

DavidCOG

> …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?

jschultz84

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?

DavidCOG

> 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.

jschultz84

How about we just use logic. Today people are starving in parts of the world. This would tell us that we already don't have enough food to feed the world in combination with the food supply being poorly distributed. Many genetically engineered plants provide a higher yield and thus, more food. These foods are also sometimes made to have longer shelf lives, which allows us to distribute them over wider spread areas if necessary. They can be altered to grow in environments where they wouldn't normally grow.

Now as for you personally wanting to eat organic, I really don't care. I want people to eat whatever the choose to eat and if your local area doesn't provide enough organic foods for your personal needs then feel free to work to change that, you won't hear a single complaint from me. All I ask is that you stop caring more about WHAT I eat more than IF I eat.
DavidCOG

Ah yes – 'common sense logic' in place of evidence and science. No, thanks.

> Many genetically engineered plants provide a higher yield…

Evidence? Monsanto sales literature does not count. Try this:

“The use of genetically engineered corn and soybeans in the United States for more than a decade has had little impact on crop yields despite claims that they could ease looming food shortages” – http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/AL…

You've been fooled by the GM propaganda – or you're trying to sell it.
Santtu Luopajärvi

I know “I read about this somewhere” isn't the most powerful of arguments, but as I understand it, GM soy, wheat, corn and whatnot are basically grown on license from Monsanto and their colleagues. I recall that this means that farmers have to buy their seeding crops from the company, and are forbidden to save any to use “for free”. My memories of the details are hazy, but the whole operation had the latest private sector policy “you don't own it, you're just renting it” all over it.

And who wouldn't love a constant, uninterrupted, 100% guaranteed cash flow? If you own the patent and therefore the right to license GE crops, and you manage to get your crop all over the place… Loads of cash. Feeding the world is a side effect, and developing countries would probably be *far* better off for not having to deal with license fees for their food (or, as it often tends to be the case, for their export crops).
DavidCOG

Good points.

I'm too busy with global warming deniers to really get stuck in to this GMO issue, but the little digging that I've done has produced a *lot* of dirt. E.g. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=monsanto+sues+… This is a corporation that will do anything to increase profits.

Also, the environmental impact of GMO is very bad. There seems to be no benefits to GMO – other than massive profits to a few chemical corporations.
Poppa Big Poppa

Are you just angry because you have a tiny weeny? Or maybe a stick is lodged in your ass?

Another guestion, because I'd rather find out more about yourself than what you believe in, considering you can learn a whole lot more, have you ever seen a vagina? Do find yourself better than others, because you eat organic food, or because you chose to “help the environment”?

Maybe, just maybe, all those websites you shown your evidence from is organic food industry propaganda?

You want my opinion? Or evidence? I won't waste my time, but I will leave you with this:
Go fuck yourself, you pompous ass.
GreenBlog

Your comment was deleted. Why? Because comments with profanity, personal attacks or objectionable material will be edited or deleted. Feel free to refute someone's points or offer counter arguments, but please do not engage in name calling. If you don't want your posts to be deleted then please participate in the discussions in a friendly and constructive way.
http://www.facebook.com/huugeblackguy Scott Taylor Bingle

With the exception of increased food production.*

Your excessive bleeding-heart 'blame-the-corporation' schtick is humorous.
DavidCOG

Scott,

You need to try and separate GMO propaganda from reality. Here are a couple of starters for you:

- Genetically engineered corn and soybeans in the United States for more than a decade has had little impact on crop yields despite claims that they could ease looming food shortages. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g53DoblG25y7O5t4KPsuzYyxMd6Q

- Failure to yield. The promise of higher yields from GM crops has proven to be empty. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html

Your wide-eyed, ignorant gullibility is pitiable.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

“Ah yes – ‘common sense logic’ in place of evidence and science. No, thanks.”

Funny thing is, none of the above three are on your side.

“P.S. I notice you couldn’t provide a single piece of evidence to back up your original claim. I know why that is. ”

You make some pretty hefty demands for evidence from someone whose sole sources involve anecdotes, Google and Wikipedia.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Hsiuy-Powiu/100001090436621 Hsiuy Powiu

i know your comment was more then a year ago however. you know why the organic farmers are making more money in not even half the time as conventional farmers ? because ORGANIC farming is more sutainable and can feed the world.

conventional farming is starvation and people saying organic cant feed the world is just not true. i dont really know that very much about it tho but it would make total sense actually just by meanagreens ''Whole Foods has just started…you'll see them grow to 10 billion a quarter in no time at all… '' comment. hes probably a conventional farmer but it would beg the question as to why conventional farmers wouldnt want to start fresh and go organic because they would make twice the money. (but that is just my take on it)

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

“you know why the organic farmers are making more money in not even half the time as conventional farmers ? because ORGANIC farming is more sutainable and can feed the world. ”

So, what you’re saying is, you don’t understand what the word “sustainable” means?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

“Spot the hypocrisy?”

Only in every post you make, Daivd.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

“Spot the hypocrisy? ”

Only in about every post you make, David.

I think my favorite is when you claim that if GM food is popular it’s because of the Capitalist Boogeyman and his Evil Mind Control Ray, but that if organic food is popular it’s because of Noble Revolutionaries who are “educating” (read: indoctrinating) themselves and that any attempt to point out the billions and billions of dollars in profit that are de facto raked are all paranoid conspiracy.

jesusluvr

You are spot on jschultz. I don't think the author of this article even watched the episode. I just caught the rerun of it tonight on Showtime. Penn & Teller disclose just about everything.

Me thinks Simon needs to go back and revisit this episode. P&T just kicked off their new season too recently. Check out their fast food episode. They have a message to those who feel they might be paid off by big corporations. It's a pretty strong message and I believe them!

Pah-raise Jayzus!!

(or don't)

http://www.facebook.com/people/Hsiuy-Powiu/100001090436621 Hsiuy Powiu

and if people believe fast food is good for them when fast food is not good for them who profits the poeple or the people behind the fast food industries..i cried a little bit inside when penn and teller did the fast food episode the food industry totally used penn and teller to lead to seperate people from the reality of fast food

and i thought to myself that is a dangerous misconception but then again some people care 'just' enough to render them self persuaded by the biggest magic trick of all 'deception' an di am not accusing penn an dteller' of the willful intellectual slanderization of their viewers

but i feel the show as unintentional as it may be it has become about thinking outside the box but then being put inside another newer box with the same old go with the flow mentality dont think for you we'll think for you but if you stop and realize the show is after all called 'bullshit' lately i try my best to not sell into the show with that belief like a christian would have watching '100 huntley street' . as stupid as i might sound i still value my stupid mind and i'll continue to try and not have what little of it that there is left to salvage of my mind to be high jacked by some 'show' but every one has their perceptual blind spots.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

“and if people believe fast food is good for them when fast food is not good for them who profits the poeple or the people behind the fast food industries..i cried a little bit inside when penn and teller did the fast food episode the food industry totally used penn and teller to lead to seperate people from the reality of fast food ”
So, you’re admitting that you didn’t bother to watch the episode, and are only having a knee-jerk reaction because they DARED to argue in favor of people being allowed to choose their own diets because it flies in the face of your authoritarian need to control the behaviors of other people? Y’know, much like the initial author and the Organic Farming episode.

Because not once did they ever make the argument that fast food was “healthy”. I don’t know of ANYONE who believes that.

Pingback: shawnkquinn.com » Blog Archive » Penn & Teller’s organic food gaffe
http://twitter.com/fastttimes HankTheCat

This “rebutal” of Penn and Teller has no supporting evidence. The only arguments it uses are full of ad-hominem attacks. Using that logic I could say the author can't be trusted because he is a filthy hippie. But wait, he probably is….
http://www.thewasteproject.wordpress.com/, ed gregory

The idea of owning a seed. GM or not is crazy. this means that the very fundamentals of our planet, nature, can be exploited.
__________________________________

Latest blog: war and its climate crimes.
http://thewasteproject.wordpress.com/
Kam

I love how the hippies get all up in arms when they are ridiculed.

End of the day, your “advantages” of organic over GM where pissed all over in this episode. get over yourselves. you are morons.

and the MORON who said that GM arent higher yield just lost all credibility by saying that. do you even KNOW the POINT in GM?? dumbass. i dont care what you do with your money, but i do care that you may reproduce and have kids as stupid as you.

Santtu Luopajärvi

The POINT in GM is probably to get gengineering firms money. Obviously the product has to have some advantages (such as better resistance to chemicals that would basically kill your regular, unaltered plant), otherwise you wouldn't be able to sell it.

But I have seen little evidence of markedly increased crop yields that are attributable to GM. This, in itself, is not a problem. The problem is that GM has been marketed as the Holy Grail of food production, plus the side effect of GM companies owning the patents to their products (again, not a problem, unless they end up controlling the market where commercial-level farming becomes impossible).

As a side note, what I find very suspicious is that there are lobbyists (in EU, for example), who want any markings of GM taken off from the food packaging. As a consumer, I would like to choose how exactly my food was grown and produced…
GreenBlog

Comments with profanity, personal attacks or objectionable material will be edited or deleted. Feel free to refute someone's points or offer counter arguments, but please do not engage in name calling. If you don't want your posts to be deleted then please participate in the discussions in a friendly and constructive way.

Pingback: Calling Bullshit on Penn & Teller’s Bullshit « lianhua.nu
WP

As a big James Randi fan, I've traditionally been rather supportive of Penn&Teller personally and enjoy their acts, but the way they try to debunk what they perceive to be threats to their idealistic view of libertarianism is really getting on my nerve nowadays.

Of course, there are still many things to be discovered regarding the use of GM and other various methods of improving the way we feed ourselves, and it might as well be in the future we'll need to make a value judgment regarding these issues, carefully weighing pros and cons. Not everybody or every nation will come to the same conclusion about this, yet by belittling those on the other side with legitimate scientific evidence, Penn&Teller really hurt their credibility and rob their considerable number of followers a chance to think over such complicated problem.

In any case, it's kinda ironic that Penn&Teller would be the first in line to laugh at creationism/intelligent-design fringe scientists like Michael Behe and like-minded think-tanks like Discovery institute, yet they use the same tactic to discredit topics like environmentalism because they feel it's a threat against their ideology.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

“yet by belittling those on the other side with legitimate scientific evidence”

Funny how this “legitimate scientific evidence” in favor of organic farming is never actually cited.
Maybe because it doesn’t actually exist?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

In fact, “belittling legitimate scientific evidence” seems to be a staple of the organic movement. Their froth-mouthed attempts to shun all contrary science, no matter how thoroughly supported, as “corporate propaganda” is the precise tactic employed by the homepaths and purveryors of other New Age-oriented snake oil, whose customers, suppliers and vocal supporters are also conveniently the same sorts who prop up ‘organic’ dogma. Funny thing, that.

Mitch

I would suggest that you watch episode 111 before you judge them. From about 11 minutes onwards it is pretty obvious that they are pro-science, and compassionate people. On the other hand, Environmentalists that support organic foods are anti-government, willing to have 2 billion people die, and completely uninformed.

FACT the FDA regulates all food produced.
FACT a noble prize was give to Norman Borlaug for apparently saving a billion lives with his GE crops.
FACT organic foods are produced by corporate farms because they have larger margins than traditional farming.
FACT its selfish to eat organic as its a waste of land
FACT technological advancements should be utilized to save lives through the larger crop yields.
FACT according to Terri Lomax the professor of botany at Oregon State University GE crops are tested more extensively than any other crops

Question: why do green supporters push sciences in all sectors except farming? Why do we want to go back to a time of massive crop failure? Why is it assumed organic foods are pesticide free or herbicide free

If you care to deny the fact GE crops produce better yields look at what Norman Borlaug accomplished in his lifetime on his wikipedia page.
SVL

It is interesting just how keen people are on questioning and attacking more environmental ways of producing food. But what is it? Are you afraid of having to pay for your food what it actually costs, instead of the current, on-loan-from-nature price?

Selfish to eat organic because it's a waste of land. Right. And have you ever heard of the little fact that the current, modern, nice, efficient and just dandy farming methods tend to make the soil poorer, so that the available arable land around the world gets less and less every year? Yeah, in industrialized nations we sure get record crops, but not because GM companies have managed to increase crop yields (googling “gm crop yields” results in a bunch of links claiming that GM has all kinds of problems, including producing more food). Why we get loads of grain and soy and all? Farming methods. And fertilizers. Especially artificial fertilizers. The annoying thing is that oil has thus far been a pretty important part of producing artificial fertilizers (they give the greatest boost to our crops), and oil is what I'd call a non-renewable resource.

The only real difference between organic, regular and GM farming is that organic tries to keep the land useable without the need of articial fertilizing, and in respect to GM, tries not to introduce unexpected and possibly harmful elements to nature (one of the problems is that the effects of GM on regular plant life are not very well researched or understood). Regular farming without GM crops tends to rely on them, and why? Because then you can plant on the same field every year, and while fertilizers help, they do not replace the soil's nutrients, but when you put in enough of that stuff, the soil can get as poor as it likes because it's the chemicals that are feeding the plants. And when you run out of it, the land is left unusable for a long, long time.

Now, GM crops might help in this a lot. But so far they don't. Does this mean that researching GM should end? Of course not. What it does mean is that it is slightly odd to defend a product that is in effect in beta stage, and which has not kept those promises we've been told to keep.

What Borlaug did was to develop a high-yield grain by cross-breeding, and giving it away. What Monsanto & Co. are doing is developing high-yield soy, which doesn't apparently work very well, plus the stuff is basically the company's private property. Wouldn't want to get tangled with that mess.

Yours,

Your Friendly Environmentalist Propaganda Office.

DavidCOG

Excellent points. “On-loan-from-nature prices” is particularly on target.

Also, as you say, soil depletion is a massive issue – http://www.tjclark.com.au/colloidal-minerals-li… – once the oil runs out and we don't have tons of chemical fertiliser to dump on the fields, crop yield is going to plummet.

The other non-scientific indicator that organic = good and GMO = bad is the type of people on either side of the argument. The pro-GMO are very often ranting and abusive with no substantive arguments. They simply hate people who are against a product that might improve their country's GDP or take away their 49 cents burgers.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

“Your Friendly Environmentalist Propaganda Office. ”

Well, at least you’re honest.

Mitch

How can you possibly argue that GE is not good after looking at the benefits brought about by it by Norman Borlaug – in developing countries mind you. All that has become clear through your responses is that you are anti Monsanto & Co. Alright, I can get behind hating a company for one reason or another but hating a means of producing more food is ridiculous.

You claim that GE crops do not produce more efficent yeilds. Well in 2005 Norman Borlaug begged to differ, and, to be honest, I perfer to trust the internationally recognized scientist over you.

http://openvideo.dailymotion.com/video/x9kqel_b…

I know you probably wont watch this but figured I would post it anyways.
DavidCOG

Excellent points. “On-loan-from-nature prices” is particularly on target.

Also, as you say, soil depletion is a massive issue – http://www.tjclark.com.au/colloidal-minerals-li… – once the oil runs out and we don't have tons of chemical fertiliser to dump on the fields, crop yield is going to plummet.

The other non-scientific indicator that organic = good and GMO = bad is the type of people on either side of the argument. The pro-GMO are very often ranting and abusive with no substantive arguments. They simply hate people who are against a product that might improve their country's GDP or take away their 49 cents burgers.
GreenBlog

Your comment was deleted. Why? Because comments with profanity, personal attacks or objectionable material will be edited or deleted. Feel free to refute someone's points or offer counter arguments, but please do not engage in name calling. If you don't want your posts to be deleted then please participate in the discussions in a friendly and constructive way.
Mitch

How can you possibly argue that GE is not good after looking at the benefits brought about by it by Norman Borlaug – in developing countries mind you. All that has become clear through your responses is that you are anti Monsanto & Co. Alright, I can get behind hating a company for one reason or another but hating a means of producing more food is ridiculous.

You claim that GE crops do not produce more efficent yeilds. Well in 2005 Norman Borlaug begged to differ, and, to be honest, I perfer to trust the internationally recognized scientist over you.

http://openvideo.dailymotion.com/video/x9kqel_b…

I know you probably wont watch this but figured I would post it anyways.
fj198602

Christian Louboutin|Louboutin shoes|Louis Vuitton
———————————————–
christian louboutin|christian shoes|designer shoes|women's shoes|cheap shoes|boots shoes|handbags|designer handbags|louis vuitton|marc jacobs|gucci|chloe|oursbag|handbags wholesale|Louboutin shoes|fashion shoes|sexy boots|high shoes|sexy shoes|stilettos|boots|women shoes|comfortable shoes|bridal shoes|women's shoes|shoes online|shoes on sale|cheap shoes|hoes for sale|new shoes|new balance shoes|fashion shoes|fashion
———————————————–
louis vuitton purses|gucci bags on sale|chanel bags|black handbag|leather handbag|marc jacobs handbags|brown handbags|fashion handbags
———————————————–
christian heels|christian fashion|christian louboutin high heels|christian louboutin heels shoes|christian louboutin high shoes|christian louboutin high boots|christian boots|christian louboutin peep toe
———————————————–
christian louboutin black heels|christian louboutin high heel boots|giuseppe zanotti|tory burch shoes|fendi|miu miu|christian dior|alexander-mcqueen dress shoes|christian louboutin leather shoes|miu-miu dance shoes
http://keenerworks.com/ website design

I will say that, re: global warming, I recall Penn saying something recently to the effect that his opinion on global warming is that he's not sure. To me, that is a sign of intellectual honesty.

In the end, nutritionally speaking, I'd take locally grown stuff over organics from who knows how far away. But that's just me.
wrerwere

all you guys are paranoid and uninformed looneys just beuacse extra stuff is added into the non organic food does not make it bad you just hear oh no pesticides and oh no genticly modified and freak

fuck you
kyle from canada

Penn and Teller's main point is that if we all switched to organic food 3 BILLION PEOPLE will die because they won't have any food to eat. no one on your site has contradicted this. i live in Canada and we produce 20% of the worlds wheat and we consume 2%. if it wasn't an industrialized industry how many people would die of starvation?

http://www.enviro-space.com/ Simon

I would love to see some sources or citations for those numbers, thanks.

Mitch

check what I posted earlier on Norman Borlaug. Although I am not sure about this wheat statistic I am certain that we can't make enough food without the use of GE crops.

mjl1621

He also doesn't address the fact that there are scientists that argue there's a stronger correlation between the sun and the earths temperature than CO2 production and the earths temperature. Also he doesn't mention the fact that around 97% of greenhouses gases come naturally from the earth; e.g. volcanic eruptions.
http://zixmailencryption.com/ zixmail pricing

i really like this site for their good tips!
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=56010109 Jesse McClure

Just checked this out and I couldn't get through two lines of this article: This article is bullshit, and here's why:

>>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.”<<

I hadn't even remembered that point until this article brought it up. It was mentioned in the show, but it was a minor point and/or closing thought. It certainly wasn't the main point.

>>But what Penn and Teller fail to mention is that the so called “Food Policy Analyst Expert”, Alex Avery, is paid by the Hudson Institute.<<

Failed to mention it? Did you watch the show?! The first 1 second clip of the guy was standing in front of a huge “Hudson Institute” sign. When he was introduced to the show he was introduced as being from the Hudson Institute while he was standing in front of the same huge fucking sign. They could not have been clearer about his affiliation if they tattooed it on his forehead!

Perhaps you can argue that being from the Hudson Institute he is biased – I would like to learn about that. But to say that the show “failed to mention” it is just a fucking lie.

>>

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=56010109 Jesse McClure

It seems JShultz made a similar comment – I had not read all the others when I posted.

In any case I second his thoughts in questioning whether the author of this article even watched the show.
http://twitter.com/gpork stranger

He only mentioned it was the Hudson Institute. They made no mention of what the Hudson Institute is about and where their funding comes from. That’s what the show failed to mention and that’s why it’s “bullshit”.

Pingback: Freaky Friday « The Big Mattress
http://www.facebook.com/huugeblackguy Scott Taylor Bingle

As old as this is, I just simply have to address the fact that DavidCOG is a jackass.

DavidCOG

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your valuable contribution to this thread.

Did you read all of my earlier comments? In case you didn't, this one could've been written just for you:

> The other non-scientific indicator that organic = good and GMO = bad is the type of people on either side of the argument. The pro-GMO are very often ranting and abusive with no substantive arguments. They simply hate people who are against a product that might improve their country's GDP or take away their 49 cents burgers.

I see you're still at school. I suggest you spend a little more time reading and learning, and a little less time posting juvenile abuse on the internet. Good luck.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

I suggest you spend a little more time reading and learning, and a little less time posting juvenile abuse on the internet.

You REALLY need to start heeding your own advice, David.

http://www.green-blog.org Green Blog

Please behave or your comments will be deleted.

Pingback: The Audiophile Banana - Page 2 - DIYMA.com
http://profiles.google.com/homerjay422 Max Kelly

Too bad you didnt rebuttal a single on of their points during the episode.

Idiot.
bopy UT

So to summon up, farmers are stupid for using more expensive GE seeds that give same ammount of food which is of lesser quality and cheaper than organic food. Seems like they are driving themselves out of the market. Stupid farmers.
What are you worried about then, its the power of the free market.
LOL

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

” So to summon up, farmers are stupid for using more expensive GE seeds that give same ammount of food which is of lesser quality and cheaper than organic food.”

You’ve got “GE” and “organic” in the wrong spots, sans the “cheaper” bit of course. Otherwise, you’d have had a valid point.

Oh, and it’s, “To sum it up”, genius.

Augustus Pavy

To Penn and Teller (if you ever read this) Haters gonna hate. Shine on.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCEJH3N4F3U3XMILX7XFVRLQXY Cody

Excellent job. Subvert the mountains of hard, scientific evidence refuting the lies and propaganda of the organic zealots with a few well-placed (and untrue) circumstantial ad hominems, all the while intentionally avoiding to mention that you yourself are getting your misinformation from multi-billion dollar agencies out for gain like the OCA.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DFC4ICOXMCQOSWEQZV4S54MU7I b

Hmm, don’t trust a magician? But how can we trust an article that doesn’t even adhere to grammatical rules? Case in point:

“You should also don’t forget that…”

I’ll just leave it at that.

http://twitter.com/simonleuf Simon Leufstedt

Yeah, you’re right, that sentence doesn’t sound good now when I re-read it. Thanks for pointing that out and helping me improve my grammar.

Neilslade

I learned long ago to not take Penn and Teller’s myth busting seriously.

They are not scientists, they are entertainers.

I’ve seen them get their “facts” completely twisted- their show has virtually nothing to do with
unbiased research– they simply look for a way to sell their own line of bullshit and their TV show.

Take their show blasting organic foods-

who did they interview to prove their science?

The Hudson Institute– a neoconservative think tank representing Proctor and Gamble and others who make
their living selling absolute junk

The Hudson Institute is supported by donations from companies and individuals. Corporate contributors listed in a publication from 2001 included Eli Lilly and Company, Monsanto Company, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra, Cargill, and Procter & Gamble.[8]

The biggest problem with Penn and Teller is that they actually sell their entertainment as neutral fact finding. And people believe it.

Guess Barnum was right.

Enough said of Penn and Teller Science.

It’s bullshit.

Previous Story

About the Author

Tags

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

More Like This Story

Support This Author

Comment Guideline