(NaturalNews) The mainstream media's misinformation blitz following the recent release of the infamous Stanford University organic food study has sunk to an incredible new low. Based on his own misguided delusions of what the study actually concluded, New York Times columnist Roger Cohen has decided to openly share his asinine belief that all organic food is a "myth," and that growing more genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) is the only way to feed the planet and save the world.
In case you missed it, a 40-year review of research comparing organic and conventional foods that was recently published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine found that organic crops contain far fewer chemical pesticide residues than conventional crops, and that organic meat is far safer than conventional meat, among other findings. (http://www.nytimes.com)
But major news outlets like the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, Fox News, and others have been reporting the exact opposite of these conclusions. Headlines such as "Organic food no more nutritious than non-organic: study," and "Organic food has little health impact, study says," are attempting to deceive the public into believing the lie that conventional and GM foods are no different than organic foods.
Very few of these articles' authors; however, have actually had the gall to mock or demonize supporters of organic food, or make outlandishly unscientific claims about the alleged health benefits of consuming more GMOs. Only NYT columnist Roger Cohen, as far as we can tell at this point in time, has adopted an almost violent attitude of opposition towards anything and everything organic, almost as if he has no idea what organic actually means.
For your own reading entertainment, we have provided a direct link to Cohen's embarrassing pontifications illustrating his total detachment from reality: http://www.nytimes.com
Does wanting clean food make you a nutcase? Cohen seems to think so
Cohen expresses very early on in his rant that he has an utter distaste for the word organic, as well as everything that he thinks the word represents. Seething with hatred, phrases likening organic ideology to a "romantic back-to-nature obsession of an upper middle class," or to a form of "affluent narcissism," touch on just how vehemently Cohen despises all things organic.
Like a rabid beast with foam spewing out of its mouth, Cohen attacks all aspects of organic "ideology," as he puts it, in his irrational rampage. Cohen leaves no stone unturned, no logical fallacy encumbered, in his pathetic attempt to convince his readers, whoever they are, that people who eat organic food are essentially no different than cult followers drinking the flavored punch at the behest of their leader.
Oddly enough, Cohen does include a few short, and also contradictory, remarks about how organic food admittedly contains fewer chemical contaminants than conventional food, and that organic growing methods conserve the environment -- but never mind all that, we need more GMOs, for goodness sake. By purporting that organic agriculture automatically equals lower yields and poorer health, Cohen makes the dastardly claim that "nonorganic" is the food of the future, and that organic is "an elitist, pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype."
Apparently Cohen missed the comprehensive study released by the Rodale Institute back in 2011 that found that organic growing systems actually produce higher yields than conventional and GMO growing systems. The same study also found that organic food is indeed healthier than conventional food, a fact that Cohen foolishly denies throughout his blundering commentary. (http://www.naturalnews.com/033925_organic_farming_crop_yields.html)
People like Cohen are a danger to humanity
Ironically, if anyone is "off their rocker" and living in fairy tale land, it is Roger Cohen from the NYT, not the organic movement. The very attributes Cohen has assigned to those who prefer to eat clean, healthy food grown in such a way as to support local family farmers and enrich growing soils are the very attributes that are actually true about himself. Cohen has apparently adopted his own cult-like belief system in the make-believe benefits of conventional and GM agriculture as well, and nobody can convince him otherwise.
It is rhetorical nonsense like the kind penned by Cohen in his anti-organic manifesto that actually gives more credence to superiority of organic agriculture over anything the chemical industry has been able to conjure up within the past 100 years. And any honest look at the available science will reveal that not a single GM crop has ever been shown to produce higher yields, use fewer pesticides, or help "feed the world" any better than the organic crops mankind has been growing since the beginning of time.