left. but they have a good cause. katiee couric somehow says over 95% of all americans will be overweight or obese in two decades. how can they make a statement like that. s only 95%? yeah. i don t know where the science comes from. but i m pretty sure it s not from scientists.know here is one part of her movie that we could both agree with. the sugar industry is extraordinarily powerful. they re inhe business to makeao money. not to keeprd america healthy. they re in business to make money. what a shock. i guess mainstream news people. it s horrific. you have newspaper people. you have members of the publicae health community who are also in business to make money, but somehow when it s a food company and the food company happens to be big, it becomes terrible. and they are powerful in one way. they do keep their subsidies.he right. yes. subsidies are a huge problem. that s actually one that thisat movie doesn t even get to until
an hour into its 90 minutes. and the subsidies, we just give money to these sugar companies? give money to sugar companies, to farmers to grow things like corn in excess, which then gets turned into high fructose corn syrup. we re essentially giving money to farmers and companies to make all this sweetener and punishing consumers for consuming it.ner america s first lady recently explained that even if kidsnsum don t want to eat so-called healthy food, america is going to give it to them anyway. no child wants to brush theie teeth or go to the doctor for shots, but we make them do these things anyway because these are the norms for keeping our kids healthy. and in case kids didn t get the message, she broke into rap. if i m gonna help my brain come to fruition elp i m gonna have to feed it quality nutrition role my chick machine a wrap don t jam it in a nugget i get hype for snacks get.
doesn t know the difference. there are a lot of people that recognize the taste difference and the freshness when they go and get it direct. so many studies show there is no taste difference and no freshness difference. freshness and taste have to do with how it s grown by an individual person and by an individual farmer. that s a fa lashes argument that the organic industry has been use to go bump up frieses and justify essentially extorting money from innocent consumers. last word. there is some people who don t recognize the taste difference. but the vast majority of peopleo do. they recognize when eating something fresh as it s not an issue of freshness. it is.d absolutely. i d love to give themem a bln taste test. we re not going to settle this here. thank you, liz and jan. to keep this conversation goingo use #foodfight. let people know what you think. coming up, some people say don t eat anything with a face. also how michelle obama is just
stores. but they also had nearly twice as many supermarkets and large scale grocers. food deserts areke a myth. so do taxpayers get their money back? no. it srs government. they never stop taking yourvern money. the government will spend more this year to, as they put it,mo finance food options. it s so mindless, so stupid and useless. i would despair for our future were it not for my periodic n exposure to young people who gee it, who are much wiser than today s political elites. my nonprofit offers school i teachers free videos that introduce students to economicsf this year we ran an essay contest inviting students toear write on the topic food nannies, who decides what you eat. inti class, many students had watched a show i did called myths, lies and complete stupidity which included interviews with people like theh state legislator who wants the w government to ban salty food. we find if you have an
or india. or a lot of countries where people have the right to know. you might decide not to buy food that contains gmo s. certain companies would lose a lot of money if you didn t buy their stuff. yeah, john. you re just about money. actually, this really isn t about money. it s about the right to know. the right to know real information that s important. the usda and other science organizations have said gmo s are absolutely the same in terms of nutritional content. there is why not label them? having something on that just says gmo doesn t tell the consumer anything other than it s a skull and cross bones. what anti-gmo people want, what michael hanson wants is to scare people and end the biotechnology revolution. so it has no that s not it s simply a label the same arguments were used when they required the labeling for fats and sugars and saturated fats. thank you, michael, john.