Students love gourmet “non-GMO organic” food (from McDonald’s)

Think you could tell the difference between organic, non-GMO food and McDonald’s? Well, these students sure couldn’t!

Watch as CFACT students show that all you need to do is tell someone the food is organic and non-GMO, and they will think it is better. The students even say the McDonald’s they don’t know they are eating is way better than McDonald’s!

The best part: *While laughing* “I would never trust McDonald’s apples.” *Unknowingly eats McDonald’s apples.* “Tastes fresh!”

Categories

About the Author: Adam Houser

Adam Houser coordinates student leaders for CFACT's collegians program.

  • Russ Wood

    Yes, well. Penn & Teller did that some years ago, with consumers selecting normally farmed fruit and vegetables over ‘organic’. Better looking, better tasting, and chemically no different.

  • dorian

    No surprise here really. What did you expect? After all, these are the same kind of students whom go to lectures and believe everything their lecturers tell them, like humans causing global warming.

    A better study would have been asking how many of them prepare their own food every day, as opposed to buying any food, fast or otherwise. Then you would get a better idea whether these students even care about eating healthily.

    2016 students are not like students of 1956, even less so as those of 1916. That’s the real problem. Its probably why they are now called Snow-flakes. What is different today, is that it is much more competitive since many more go to university than 100 years ago.

    All this food test showed is that students are quite ignorant, and like to pretend that they know something when they actually don’t. Something that wasn’t the case 50 and even more so, 100 years ago, in those years, the expectation of university was much more serious than it is today, for today, university is consider more of a right than an honour to earn.

    Maybe this food test would have revealed more if it was applied on the academic staff! Now that could have explained a lot of things.

  • MM59

    Personally, I think this diminishes the movement to expose climate change. Not your best work or best analogy.

    I received an e-mail from CFACT today stating this about this challenge – “Finding creative ways to debunk food hysteria and educate students about the wholesomeness of GMO and affordable, efficiently produced foods is just one way CFACT students are informing the debate on campus.”

    First – did you do a side by side test? No.
    Second – Do these kids know what real food states like or is there diet preliminarily processed?
    Third – can you get that chemistry student to examine the nutrients in an organic apple versus a GMO apple – are they the same?

    Soylent green was “affordable and efficiently produced” – would you want to eat it?

    Spend some time researching the food supply and how it changed. Look at the so-called science behind GMO’s. You may be surprised at what you find. And then if you are over 50 – think back to the taste of the 1950 produce versus today’s, which was better?

    This argument is as distorted as the Supersize Me movie. Because we all know that yes you will get sick and fat if all you eat is McDonald’s for 30 days. But you would also get sick if all you ate was broccoli for 30 days. Our bodies require many different forms of nutrients, so eating just one food is no good for us.

    Global warming is a myth but so is the GMO story that it is just as good as God’s natural products. Glysophate and other pesticides we are ingesting by the poundful is not good for us

    • Pam Dunn

      And what a load of BS you spew bet your are ANTI-GMO aren’t you and adore Al Gore.

    • wally12

      @MM59: You bring out some interesting views. I too am concerned that GMO’s may have some detrimental side affects. However, I have not to date read any actual proof of those side affects. The human body is capable of eating many

      foods that contain harmful substances and to not be harmed by them. The liver can do a good job depending on the concentration and volume consumed. Getting that evidence to date has been a problem since there are so many factors in each human that can affect the results. An example is alcohol where a small amount may be beneficial while in large quantities is deadly. The same can be said about water where a very large amount consumed in a very short time can be deadly. The other view is that do GMO foods contain toxins that are bio-accumulative where the level of toxins are retained and reaches a deadly situation. I sure don’t know. However, I prefer to wait and see until enough data is available. How about you?

      • MM59

        @wally12:disqus is an old saying – Everything is a poison, it depends on the dose.

        I am not here to sell the dangers of GMO’s. I commented because I think CFACT made a mistake on this one.

        I have watched more than two dozen long documentaries on GMO’s over the past decades, read many articles and then did the common sense logic thought process before coming to the conclusion these are not good for us and there are many myths (higher crop yields, etc.) associated with this topic. Like the global warming issue – there are always two sides to the story.

        A quick google on dangers of GMO gives you this story from a former GMO scientists out of Canada – http://preventdisease.com/news/13/050613_Former-Pro-GMO-Scientist-Speaks-Out-On-The-Real-Dangers-of-Genetically-Engineered-Food.shtml

        We are NOT a healthy nation. Chronic diseases have skyrocketed. The amount of pharmaceuticals taken annually, by younger and younger people, have skyrocketed. Go to any grammar school and see the line at the nurses office during medicine time.

        You certainly have a right to wait and see. As for me, I have read enough. Logic tells me that a food product that has been altered to release a toxin that kills insects when they bite into it can not be good for me. Studies ARE showing that these pesticides are accumulating in our bodies.

        • Enough

          Your points are well taken. If you limit the evidence to GMOs in dairy milk and products, the evidence is startling that GMOs have had adverse effects. If you broaden an examination to the effect of FDA policy on consumers in the USA since Eisenhower there can be NO DEBATE that FDA policy that has permitted GMOs and forbidden natural products and suppressed free speech has gone hand in hand with the decline of America’s health.

      • Enough

        The “wait and see argument” is not unreasonable if GMOs are doing no damage.

        The “wait and see” tactic is NOT the one CFACT is using because the green movement is obviously doing damage by reducing freedom, redistributing wealth, and corrupting formerly scientifically independent organizations complicit in a world wide movement. CFACT has examined the situation and makes relevant reports about it to expose the dark political and economic motives of those who espouse the myth and profit from of man made global climate change.

        However, if there are any merits to the anti GMO arguments, does it not behoove you to examine them, lest they do significant damage, possibly unstoppable, as the green movement has?

        Study the GMO matter and decide before it can no be longer stopped. CFACT has done so with green, global warming and related environmental issues: it reports and is making a difference. Perhaps the global warming myth and the damage it will do can be stopped. Likewise, if there are GMO problems, they can be identified and consumers warned.

        • wally12

          @Enough: I can agree that if GMO’s are harmful to the degree that they are bio accumulative or that they can change the gene structure or other human traits, then we need to know about them in terms of actual proof. I too have doubts about all new products and processes that can be harmful. However, I have witnessed many claims from the scientific and medical findings that many products are harmful. Examples include that eggs are a problem and should be avoided. Butter was bad while margerine was good. Beef must be avoided. fish are good but eat only small quantities of certain fish due to the toxins they contain. If the toxins that fish eat and that accumulate in their bodies, why doesn’t the fish die. On the other hand some toxins do attribute to fish deaths due to the development of cancers etc. Therefore, I am with you on the theory that some products are harmful. What the real problem is that is there definitive proof that these products actually result in illness and premature death for humans rather than other factors not considered in the studies.The thought that keeps me concerned is that humans have been born with many congenital conditions and of course live due to modern medicine and treatments. While 100 years ago there were no treatments and the person may have died and thus didn’t pass on the same defects to the new generation.

          • Enough

            Wally, the unspoken thread in the topic is the corrupting influence of money on ‘science.’ No one will convince me that intake of natural (not chemically ‘enhanced’) dairy, eggs, chicken, beef, bacon, fish, salt, wheat, oil, and other dietary products known to be eaten from the dawn of time are harmful. It took paid scientists to ‘prove’ this, just like they have proven man made ‘global climate change’ after having failed at man made ‘global cooling’ and later, man made ‘global warming’, another non-credible failure. Likewise big pharma and big agra both have for profit agendas, paid scientists, and a complicit FDA, a perfect copy of NASA’s blessing on global warming. ‘Follow the money’ is often good advice.

            A balanced natural diet, if you can find it, is probably generally superior to GMO foods.

            I was in favor of widespread DDT spraying to eradicate mosquitos because it prevented the death of millions. I can see cause and effect now that DDT is gone – millions dies annually due to easily preventable malaria, and spend countless money fighting with recurring fights after the first case. It used to be that chemistry was used for obviously beneficial purposes. It is not so obvious to me now.

            • wally12

              @Enough: You and I seem to be in agreement on a number of issues. I too would rather eat natural foods rather than GMO hybrids. I am a skeptic of man made global warming from the point that CO2 is not the driver of warming even though the earth is warming on average since the ice age. What is not evident to me is a number of things about foods. Humans have been living longer on average throughout centuries. As I recall, the mummies of Egypt were found to have blocked arteries and I don’t remember how long they lived on average but if the trend of longer life is credible, then the question is did they die of heart attacks or was it a disease of some type other than heart failure and blockage. It could easily be due to the fact that preservation of foods was a significant factor. I realize that modern medicine, sanitation and success in doctor operations was a major factor. What I believe is that more conclusive evidence needs to be obtained to convince me that while GMO’s may be harmful, do they represent a danger to the longevity of humans and/or insects and other animals.

              • Enough

                Let me limit the discussion to GMOs in dairy milk and products since the 1950s, because this is the point about which I am most convinced. It is curious to me that GMOs are largely forbidden in Europe though nearly compulsive in the USA, and if not compulsive here are regulated with such ambiguity that a smart consumer can barely comprehend the modern required labeling for GMO and non-GMO product. Likewise average health and longevity in Europe is superior.

                Check the difference in the milk lables to compare, and see how much sense they make. This is not a leading and meaningless phrase like ‘organic’ which lacks any common legal definition, but a regulatory soup that brims with suspicion. Pretend that you are a non GMO buyer – could you figure it out based upon the required product labeling? Something is wrong here.

                For a discussion about this, I would refer you to:
                http://research.lfb.org/research/html/nhs_gmo_0315/?code=WNHSS800&ver=1&n=NHS_gmo_0315

                One need look no further to the FDA and its actions and funding to realize the harm that has been done to free speech and the body of regulations that cater to big agra and big pharma. I really encourage you to look at it!

                • wally12

                  @Enough: I will look at it. Have a nice day.

          • Simon
      • Simon
  • ADRoberts

    Preconceived ideas. And because of their arrogance, they are quite easy to deceive.
    Guess what? The same is true of their political opinions. This is where arrogance gets you.

  • jimgraham100

    This is ridiculous. GMOs have nothing to do with taste or telling the difference. GMO foods are genetically modified and dangerous. Period.

  • Kurt

    I talked to a great farmer recently from Canada who runs a very large operation. He said that you can always tell a successful “Organic” farmer by the lights on his spray equipment.

  • ONTIME

    Want to make money, then keep up with the times and make it more attractive….most people do not understand “cost driven”, overhead or research cost, they just want to eat well and think they are getting their money’s worth…..

  • Enough

    As to the issues of “green” and “climate change” I agree with virtually every aspect of the background, facts and reasons CFACT offers. The evidence of the UN’s influence at international, national, regional and local levels to change the way we live and the definition of quality of life is overwhelming. CFACT has won on virtually every environmental question it has analyzed. Congrats to CFACT: I support all of your efforts in these areas.

    While reasonable people can disagree, the evidence concerning the effect of GMOs on the health of those who knowingly or unknowingly consume them is divided. While CFACT has been effective and eye opening in the green and climate change arenas (to its credit) the change of course or broadening of scope by CFACT to include GMOs I believe is unwise for many reasons.

    I strongly encourage CFACT to not broaden its scope to include the taking sides with any of the GMO arguments. If you persist, it seems likely you will divide your supporters, and diminish your resources. Finnaly, if you support your GMO arguments with silly taste tests, your credibility will erode naturally. Please abandon GMOs in your scope of analysis.

    • kraftEH-Ellen

      Beyond disgusted that CFACT is promoting GMO foods as wholesome. That lie is enough to make most people that are knowledgeable about GMOs look at the rest of their work debunking Climate Change in a whole new light.

      I find it very distressing their word choice is: “the wholesomeness of GMO and affordable, efficiently produced foods.” Do some research people; there are hundreds of studies in the last 5 years shedding light on the impending horrors of GMO foods that we ingest and fed to the animals that we ingest.

      Seriously makes me question their truth in real science initiative.

      • Enough

        Dear Ellen(?)

        I suspect your name is Ellen and I can call you that.(?) Hope so anyway. Excuse me if I misaddress you . . .

        I allow lots of latitude for those who agree with even a portion of the very conservative values I hold, hoping that it is an indication of their willingness to change their views according to knowledge and evaluation.

        That said, I ONCE thought that science for the SOLE purpose of feeding more people with better foods was a good thing. Since then, it has become apparent that GMO foods are associated with serious health problems for some significant portion of those who eat them.

        Since CFACT is definitely correct on climate change, and as far as I know, has only casually and unintentionally ventured into this GMO debate, I hope out great hope that they will carefully examine he issue and determine the hazards associated with eating GMO [email protected]

        So . . .don’t question their truth in real science initiative, but hope they will examine the GMO facts in the same diligent way they have examined climate change, including the political and economic motivations . . .

        We need to help our fellow soldiers, not shoot them!