Look at the credentials for anyone on the IATP staff and try telling me there’s not money in being anti-corporate.
As for unqualified, Lilliston’s qualifications are a philosophy BA, being editor for anti-corporate weekly, co-author of the aforementioned scare-mongering book, and being an associate at an environmental public relations firm.
And you still haven’t responded to any of Szwarc’s claims.
“Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two re-agents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years. These mercury-free re-agents perform important functions, including adjusting pH balances.”
Technically, that only means that someone in the industry has used it, not that it is industry standard, which is itself a step below universal compliance.
In the interests of disclosure, I am not a fan of High Fructose Corn Syrup, because I think the taste can be inferior. Beyond that, I don’t care. I am a fan of genetic engineering of crops, except for the subsection of the science that involves ensuring that plants grown from certain seeds cannot reproduce in order to guarantee profits. I am somewhat of a fan of the desire to limit reproduction for safety purposes. I also am not a fan of lawsuits directed at farmers who have had their crops contaminated or cross pollinated with what is alleged to be someone’s intellectual property.
I haven’t looked at the IATP qualifications because I don’t really care about the study. :) You do make a deadly point with the environmental PR thing though. I was just pointing out said blog wasn’t worth looking at.
Why should I? There’s no point is engaging with the claims of paid liars; they’re not arguing in good faith.
You’re right, keeping your fingers in your ears are a much better use of your time.
You don’t even have to wait for Passover. If you find a grocery store with an “ethnic” section (one of our local chains, Woodman’s, has one), you can usually find imported Coke from Mexico. Take that, along with some fruit-flavored Jarrito’s soda, and it’s like the 1970s all over again.
She’s not a researcher, she’s not an expert in the field; her only qualification is “gets printed in media outlets”, and she gets printed because industry front groups subsidize her. Her value-add is actually negative, the value of my time is not zero, so what’s the point?
That ad hominem is still a logical fallacy.
I’m right there with you Flowers. There are many wonderful things genetically enhanced crops do for us including reducing or eliminating the need for insecticides or Herbicides. The only concern is having everyone grow the exact same strain. The loss of genetic diversity is a real threat to the food supply if a new bug/mold invades it and is has no resistances or possibility to change to bring on natural selection.
In a review of a book on biotechnology by Henry I. Miller and Greg Conko, Szwarc railed against what she described as the “‘absolute safety at all costs’ perspective that’s been skillfully fueled by scares and misinformation from special interests. As a result, foods and technological developments that can and are bettering our lives and can save lives, are being maligned, feared and resisted far out of proportion to their potential risks. The result of overly-cautious, inaccurate tenets is regulatory policies rife with blunders and inconsistencies that hurt consumers, most of all the poor and disadvantaged. We not only deny ourselves better choices, as well as perfectly safe foods, we deny them to others who may more desperately need them”.
I don’t know jack shit about food, but I do know this is the standard argument in favor of decreasing type 1 errors at the cost of more type 2 errors. So the basic framework of the argument is logically sound, but it depends on the ratio of type 1 to type 2 errors as to whether the conclusion is accurate. I can’t tell you either way, I’m a numberfucker, not a scientist.
I also checked the max allowed ppm for mercury, and it’s 1ppm in America and .5ppm in Canada. But the wiki article said that that was for methylmercury, which is apparently both fat soluble and far more dangerous. The EU is apparently cool with mercury concentrations in devices of up to 1000ppm, and in packaging of either 100 or 5ppm (I can’t figure that part out). Either way, I’m pretty sure that that means .113ppm in HFCS is fairly safe. But, again, I’m not a scientist, I’m a numberfucker.
In any event, I’m not sure why Jason is dismissing an argument at face value purely because of it’s source. Especially since it makes some fairly strong arguments and it seems to have a good bit of el truthe on its side.
Anyone with a degree in foodfucking wish to comment?
Why Canada? Again?
Anyone with a degree in foodfucking wish to comment?
So? “My opponent is insane” is also ad hominem; am I therefore obligated to engage with the theories of crazy homeless people? Anyone who gets published at Tech Central Station is only slightly short of that level.
Actually, ad hominem is NOT always a logical fallacy. Like most fallacies, it depends on the context. There are certain points you can make about a person making an argument that are absolutely relevant to the argument and whether you should believe it. I’ve said this on here a dozen times now, so I’m sure it won’t sink in this time either.
That said, this particular case may be a fallacy. I haven’t looked into it to check.
Marged,
Thanks for the info! I mostly stopped due to the fact the Fructose is processed only by the liver. One thing I have noticed that seems alarming is the occassionaly lable that lists HFCS or just CS, yet claims to be carb and sugar free. I am still learning what impacts by blood in certain measures, and corn and pasta are two of the woah bad.
You haven’t proved she’s insane nor have you proved she’s lying, and from her post, she seems to be making a coherent and factual argument.
Which is more than you’ve done.
I’ve proved she’s in the pay of the industry accused of producing the problem, and associated with a couple of institutions with a long history of lying. How unreliable does she have to be before I can ignore her, oh logic master?
Guilt by association is a fallacy too.
If you’re so intent on getting us to ignore her, how about you read what she’s written, and show us how she’s wrong?
I really don’t understand what point you’re trying to prove.
I haven’t read what this women has written. But if she does have close ties to the food industry, that fact alone makes me hesitant to take her “findings” at face value. At the very least it should raise some (even small) amount of doubt.
I know this is your crusade against McCullough, but I posted upthread why this particular blogger’s arguments weren’t terribly coherent and not entirely factual.
I agree with the underlying point that there is a lot of wild overreaction about this study (and that study authors are possibly overstating their conclusions).
That doesn’t change the fact that Sandy Szwarc is being willfully misleading and her argument isn’t even internally consistent. She sounds a lot like an industry PR flack, whether she is or not.