We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Kathleen Kahl • 1 year ago

The first American generation that will not be better off than the one before them, will also be a much sicker one.

Diane Whiteley • 1 year ago

As I see it, none of these items are actually food

Wntwin • 1 year ago

Go, food babe army?? WTF? Ending this important piece with that? What the heck are you thinking? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Mary • 1 year ago

The BIGGEST stupidity is the GLYPHOSATE.... how does your mind go straight to the "meaningless stupidities"???

Wntwin • 1 year ago

So, you agree it's stupid. "Meaningless stupidities" ruin the presentation. One of the more important aspects to a written piece..the closing. And she closes it with some stupid, made up, foo foo garble. Reading along, agreeing with everything...get to the end and you're left thinking, "Who was writing this? To even think that this person is trying to coin a motivational rally cry..and that's what she came up with. How can I believe anything she says?"

In reality, of course, it's forgotten and the information is paramount. Still, she should rethink that one and stop saying it. It's just asinine. Oh, how does my mind get there? When the whole article makes perfect sense and last line doesn't. It sticks out.

Farrell Vaughan • 1 year ago

Why would you even waste your time expressing this thought. It's in no way productive and just makes you look like an internet troll. Take what is good and leave the excess that doesn't suit you. By first thinking the negative thought and then acting on it, you are incurring your own negative energy AND in no way, shape or form having any influence on the good work that Erin is doing. I heard the oven bell. Your pizza pocket is ready.

Wntwin • 1 year ago

It's the comment section. I made a comment. People clearly feel that it's important enough to reply to. If it's so unimportant why are you commenting? Look at all the negativity you are spewing without even addressing the original concern...poor slogan choice. Questioning does influence action and to say otherwise is closed minded. In my small part, if I can keep her from using such a moronic rally cry...then, it's worth the abuse from hypocrites like yourself.

Deb Goodwin Potter • 1 year ago

I agree and anyone who has studied public speaking and technical writing should understand. Last line should nail the argument. Not be a reference to something most people would have no clue about.

Wntwin • 1 year ago

Go Food Child Team! Ha! nonsense.

Mike Crognale • 1 year ago

If I recall correctly that chemical is destroyed by heat during the cooking and is thus not ingested.

Laurie Matson • 1 year ago

If that were really true there would be no story now would there?

Mike Crognale • 1 year ago

There isn't a story here. That was the point of my post.

Mary • 1 year ago

GONG!! .........If heating made it disappear as you would like to believe, then it would not show up in vaccines or in foods as it is showing up. End of story.

Mike Crognale • 1 year ago

Not quite. The chemical markers exist but in inert form. No harm.

Mary • 1 year ago

All those foods HAVE been heated in production.

Mike Crognale • 1 year ago

and the chemical is rendered inert by the process.

rhadak • 1 year ago

Making unsubstantiated claims isn't convincing. If what you say is true then prove it. Otherwise it's just your opinion. "If I recall correctly...." isn't proof of anything.

Michael DiSalvo • 1 year ago

Actually its the human body that is destroyed during cooking, TROLL.

Mike Crognale • 1 year ago

Your reply makes no sense. Do you eat all your food raw?

Michael DiSalvo • 1 year ago

If you haven't looked up studies on what Glyphosphate does to the body,in ANY form, I suggest you look up what this NON biodegradable poison does.

Mike Crognale • 1 year ago

European Food Safety Authority published an updated assessment report on glyphosate, concluding that "the substance is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA) or to pose a carcinogenic threat to humans." Furthermore, the final report clarified that while other, probably carcinogenic, glyphosate-containing formulations may exist, studies "that look solely at the active substance glyphosate do not show this effect."[14][15] In May 2016, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues concluded that "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet", even at doses as high as 2,000 mg/kg body weight orally.[16]

Trevor Ray • 1 year ago

Thanks for the reference; was about to link it myself.

Michael DiSalvo • 1 year ago

No, my reply does makes sense. Its just stupid. That's the difference. Your comment misleads and is a lie. Mine was stupid.

Laurie Matson • 1 year ago

I think you have been dipping into Grandpa's Whiskey.

Mike Crognale • 1 year ago

I don't drink. I just do, you know, proper research when I post on these scare articles.

Laurie Matson • 1 year ago

I think you are either dead from the neck up or you are a Monsanto Troll OR BOTH!!!

Mike Crognale • 1 year ago

From Wikipedia. Note the last sentence. European Food Safety Authority published an updated assessment report on glyphosate, concluding that "the substance is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA) or to pose a carcinogenic threat to humans." Furthermore, the final report clarified that while other, probably carcinogenic, glyphosate-containing formulations may exist, studies "that look solely at the active substance glyphosate do not show this effect."[14][15] In May 2016, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues concluded that "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet", even at doses as high as 2,000 mg/kg body weight orally.[16]

Laurie Cederstrom Matson • 1 year ago

Wikipedia is your source? You have to use a more reliable source than that. Wikipedia by the way has no connection to Wikileaks's.

Mike Crognale • 1 year ago

Had you bothered to really read my post you would see clear directions on doing your own research. For example, the European Food Safety Authority etc. If you do an internet search you can find the actual sources of the Wiki article I quoted.

Steve Phillips • 1 year ago

Have shared the link, although more and more people are waking up to know about good health and that poor diet, leads to many severe health conditions; the organic range in most supermarkets is still very small?

Rick Laughlin • 1 year ago

I totally agree with your deadly assessment...what can I do to spread the word Erin Elizabeth?

Chuck • 1 year ago

Most people in America are only interested is if food tastes good. The people who are interested in how healthy food is are part of a group that is so strange, they are called nuts-- health nuts. In Japan they are called normal people. I have a neighbor Bob who eats regular foods. But his son and son's girlfriend eat very healthy food and visit him for a few months every year. I told them that I drink the same brand of kombucha tea that they drink. The guy said that they only use it as a starter and grow their own. They just helped me to grow my own. Now imagine us telling people that are not health nuts that we drink a special green tea that has bacteria and fungus growing in it. Many are not interested in health.

A son of a friend is very focused in his life and is only interested in one thing-- where he is going to get his next hit of meth. Say no to drugs! This is what people get addicted to. Do not belittle their addictions by saying that Musk is addicted to sustainable energy, the Dalai Lama is addicted to peace and you are addicted to health and Facebook.

Alan Schmukler • 1 year ago

I read that Trump's people just halted the investigation into this.

patriot6 • 1 year ago

Do you have a link?

Brian Baker • 1 year ago

LOL!! Yea the Russians told then too.

Carolyn White • 1 year ago

Ignore these results at your own risk!