The following Mark's Daily Apple article was written by Marxists and is narrated by Brock Armstrong.

Why I don't trust the acceptable daily intake levels for pesticides.

The supernaturally rational adherence to the skeptic religion

irks me, and it's not because I disagree with all their stances. On many issues, they're right,

but the systematic overarching a priori denial of the viability of anything that even sniffs of alternative health is ridiculous.

I'm not even annoyed at how they deride the ancestral health movement.

What really gets me is their flippant dismissal of the potential risks of agriculture

pesticides.

One article in particular from Slate in 2012 exemplifies the sloppy, dangerous thinking

on the subject. On the surface, it's quite reasonable, persuasive, and it hits all the marks.

The author is a former organic fanatic for whom organic was a synonym for edible. So she's been to the other side and knows how

they think. She was swayed by the evidence. She's no paid agro-shill. She dug into the literature

and talked to toxicologists, horticulturists, risk experts, and nutritionists, those gatekeepers of human knowledge,

the all-powerful experts, infallible and untainted by conflicts of interest.

She dismisses the nutritional differences between organic and conventional produce,

graciously allowing that the former may have fewer nitrates and more vitamin C, and completely ignoring

the evidence that shows major differences in other important nutrients. She claims that organic

produce has pesticides too, and focuses on retinone, an organic pesticide that's more toxic by weight than many synthetics and which

organic food is presumably swimming in. Good thing organic farms in the United States aren't actually

allowed to use retinone on their crops. She's unable to find solid numbers on pesticide residues

on organic produce, concluding that,

yes, organic produce can be pesticide tainted too.

...