Deciphering the latest misleading government food study

PesticideFoodStudyWhen it comes to government studies on food, supplements and health overall it is best to proceed cautiously.

We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that ALL government studies are worthless, but we do want to question the validity of every study.

Usually you can determine the validity by paying attention to the way the study is done and by reading the “small print.”

A case in point: The USDA’s latest study on pesticides in food.

Earlier this month, the USDA released a study finding that although there were detectable levels of pesticide residue in more than half of food tested by the agency, 99% of samples taken were found to be within levels the government deems safe—and 40% were found to have no detectable trace of pesticides at all.

Sounds great if you’re listening to the one-minute version provided by a talking head on t.v.

But what can we learn if we read more details, especially if the details are provided by an alternative news source?

In short, we’ll discover that this “study” is little more than government propoganda, and that mainstream news outlets do little more than repeat the propoganda verbatim. They question little when there is plenty to question.

In the case of this particular study, discovering its uselessness takes about two minutes. It turns out that “due to cost concerns,” it did not test for residues of glyphosate.

And this alone pretty-much negates any usefuleness of the study becaue it means they did not even test for the active ingredient in the most widely used pesticide in the world (that would be Roundup pesticide made by Monsanto).

Does it not seem strange that the government would avoid testing for the very pesticide they are most likely to find? The excuse of cost concerns seems weak considering the government always has money to pay for studies to justify their own existence. And even if the cost concern did have merit, then what is the point of doing a study that doesn’t even show the most likely culprit?

The Alliance for Natural Health organization feels this omission is less to do with cost and more to do with the influence Monsanto weilds at the USDA.

In short, Monsanto lobbyists managed to keep testing for their fertilizer completely out of this study—just as they have done with this same study for years.

The Alliance For Natural Health website does not pull any punches in their reporting: “You may recall the revolving door between Monsanto and the federal government, with agency officials becoming high-paying executives—and vice versa! Money, power, prestige: it’s all there. Monsanto and the USDA love to scratch each others’ backs. Clearly this omission was purposeful.”

Read the Alliance for Natural Health reporting here.

Read the Reuters reporting here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *