I don’t think you know much about “food deserts” beyond the buzzword. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/its-not-the-food-deserts-its-the-inequality/550793/

“Organic” labels have nothing to do with food being GMO or “natural.” It’s about farming techniques, and it 100% involves pesticide use, usually in higher quantities and concentrations than you see in conventional farming.

Too bad that the article failed to mention that the farmers being sued illegally saved and cultivated the Monsanto line of seeds. That was only the whole basis of the lawsuit, so it’s understandable that a very, very biased and shitty reporter would leave it out.

1. Then it’s weird that you think you know anything about the other stuff.

2. No, they haven’t. There has not been a single instance of Monsanto (or any company) bringing a case against a farmer who didn’t know their crop had patented seed or whose crop was only partially cross-pollinated through generic wind-currents.

3…

“Everyone who disagrees with my unfounded viewpoints is a shill!”
-The Aiwaz418 Story

Except studies on glyphosate explicitly show that it doesn’t remain stored in the body. And organic crops are covered in far more pesticide than those grown with conventional farming techniques.

Well, if you can’t trust an open-source, for-profit journal that didn’t exist ten years ago, who can you trust?

Cite to a single instance of that actually happening.

The real case you’re talking about involved farmers deliberately stealing seed and ending up with crops that were 75%+ composed of the Monsanto line. That’s not the result of wind.

A commenter can write anything. I don’t see a single verified source confirming that this was said in court.

Where? When?

Someone right above you mentioned the leaky breast implant cases. Companies went bankrupt because juries believed that faulty implants caused health consequences that later scientific study revealed was impossible.

1. It’s not a carcinogen according to any scientific authority.

2. They don’t “bully farmers.” That’s mostly a myth spun out of a few real cases against farmers who *deliberately* stole seed stock that they knew was covered by a seed patent. Seed patents, incidentally, are available to anyone who develops a specific…

It’s possible to write about food and not be a fear-mongering, anti-science nutjob.

“Last year’s finale was fairly divisive.”

The word you’re looking for is “bad.” The finale was bad. 

My expectations for EL James are low, but that little detail actually managed to surprise me.

“But many people also try to avoid gluten for more minor health reasons.”

Please stop legitimizing this bullshit. Unless you have celiac or an allergy, you do not experience any health benefits by avoiding gluten. It’s not a thing. 

That’s a combination of the internet allowing anyone with a connection to publish anything and people losing the ability to discern between things worth reading and random bullshit.

See, for example, comment sections.

And I’d rather not rely on a dozen random strangers who are predisposed to think “I didn’t enjoy my experience, so I must tell the world about it” after getting a slightly-less-than-perfect-temperature hamburger at their local diner.

Online reviewers are a fucking plague.

Or don’t use carrots and sticks and just do what we did before the internet: don’t fucking go to the restaurant again. You aren’t important. You don’t need to publish your opinion online like it’s the equivalent of a NYT restaurant review.

In other words, you’ve written so many online reviews that you got a badge for it? That makes you a real expert, and not a complete tool that most local businesses would probably ban if they could do it without getting negative publicity from you and your troll army.