Modifying our foods and respecting our young people

Rachel Parent, a brave and passionate young woman, appeared on a talk show in Canada to discuss her stand on GMOs. She is very educated on the subject, knows her stuff, and has a strong rationale for her positions. It's ok to say "Let's agree to disagree", but unfortunately, that isn't what happened. In an enlightened society, we listen to one another. And we respect each other's informed decisions.

I find so many things offensive in this video. First, for Kevin O'Leary to tell an obviously educated, passionate girl that her passion isn't really hers, but that she's a shill for environmental groups? No. Just no.

Then he goes on to challenge her belief in science, when she very eloquently stated that she's not against science. She's for responsible science. A-freaking-men.

Responsible science means long-term studies (not using the general population as your study group without knowledge or consent). Credible long-term studies include control groups. Credible long-term studies include people who have consented. Credible long-term studies conducted by independent organizations, not only the companies who stand to benefit from positive results.

O'Leary challenged Rachel that science could help kids in other countries get the vitamins they need, when in fact, she pointed out, rightly so, that the amount of rice required for a child to ingest the RDA for Vitamin A was 27 bowls of rice. (oh, yummy.) Science also proves that our body absorbs vitamins best in their natural state.

Instead of trying to genetically modify our food without our consent, how about we work to rid the world of poverty. Work to help educate the poor. Work to feed the poor and help them grow the foods that they need to live a healthy life. To produce the crops that give us what our bodies need.

Oh wait. To do that, we'd have to acknowledge science - because we all lurrrve science! Because science tells us we have a climate crisis. And in order to help grow the organic foods we need to thrive as humankind, we'd need to acknowledge the science behind climate change. But we'd rather say that science doesn't exist than solve a food crisis in drought-riddled or flood-riddled countries or even regions of our own country. Or blame it on G-d, because He is punishing us for loving teh gays.

Sensing the hypocrisy yet? I've mentioned it before. When something works for the right, they are all about it. When it doesn't work for them, they hate it or simply refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy. Science is great! When it says what I want it to. When I don't like it? Science is unproven!

I wonder what a long-term study might have to say about the increasing incidence of gluten allergies in the last decade. Or celiac disease. Or obesity (wait, we already know the answer to that one). Or diabetes. (wait - we know the answer to that one, too). Or the best way to ingest vitamins (wait ... ditto). Think that GMOs might possibly have something to do with that? Gee... I wonder.

Additionally, Rachel Parent is a passionate advocate for food labeling. I agree completely. If GMOs continue to produce GE food, at least label them as such and let us make informed decisions. And don't make it more difficult for organic farmers to produce and bring to market their products. Equal opportunities and all (SOCIALISM!!). We have the right to know what is in our foods and make our own choices. Informed consent and all is important, right, the right?

Apparently not. Because Congress passed the "Monsanto Protection Act", which pretty much nullifies any state required food labeling and provides additional subsidies for those GMOs. And in a bonehead move, President Obama signed it. Remember, conservatives? - federal law supercedes state law. So even if you love it, like you do right now, or hate it like whenever it means you don't get your way (like reproductive rights), we still have to live with it. Or die with it.

To suggest that because this young woman is 14, she doesn't know her own mind, and to patronize her and condescend to her by saying she'll change her mind as she gets older (even though we all know 14-year-olds are far older than their chronological years) is insulting to the highest degree. That young woman proved her point over and over and made Kevin O'Leary look like a sad little shill for Monsanto. Yup, who's the shill now?

Watch the entire interview below. If I were Rachel Parent's umm... parent, I would be hugely proud of her. Hell, I don't know her and I'm hugely proud of her. She's a hero for our generation and our children's generation.

Wait... how come you guys call us racist?

So, this is a little far over the line. OK, it's completely and totally and irrevocably catapulted over the line.

One of the most respected and longest-tenured Congressmen, John Lewis, participated in the March on Washington. The original and last weekend's commemorating the 50th anniversary.

In covering Lewis' speech this weekend about the voting rights act and immigration reform and generally spouting racist shit, Laura Ingraham played about 10 seconds of Lewis' speech and then played a gunshot followed by complete silence.

In case you happen to be wondering what's wrong with this scenario, ummm... she just gleefully pretended that someone assassinated a sitting Congressman with a shotgun. The only surviving person to give a speech at the original March on Washington and the 50th anniversary march. Lovely, no?

Yeah, so how come the GOP is branded as racist? Uhhh... gee, I don't know.

There are also some other terms I might like to call Ingraham in addition to racist, but my mom hates it when I swear, so I'll settle for letting you use your imagination.

Hint: It's not "brilliant" or "human being" and it rhymes with a whole lot of things.

(h/t Media Matters)


Listen: