You say it is unnecessary to prove it is unhealthy but then immediately say it is necessary to do so (more or less) by providing evidence of flaws in research. How do we know the research is even conducted properly in the first place? It certainly wasn't for tobacco, and this is just tobacco all over again. The burden doesn't fall on doubters because nearly half the country doesn't even want that junk in the first place. Maybe you'll change your mind once it exceeds 50% for a majority (desire for organic foods is rising). You're not understanding that it doesn't need to be evidence against a new product. Tobacco, radioactive, and heroin products had evidence for them (the latter of which was pushed by Bayer) and now just add GMOs to the list. Why should we be guinea pigs for this junk? There's a history of selling dangerous things to people under the guise of health and I won't be fooled and nobody should be forced to disprove someone else's snake oil's value. If nobody is being forced then are you telling me that the poverty stricken can afford organic? They are forced to. Random Joes aren't in anyone's pocket. I'd trust my own lawyer for legal advice, not someone else's who is working in their interest and not mine. And no I'm not saying all scientists are bought, they probably aren't, but that doesn't mean they can't be wrong because, as I will keep hammering in, they have been before. Their track record is far from pristine so my concern is not unwarranted. Since we're becoming reliant on GMOs and chemicals I'm sure it wouldn't be easy to go 100% organic, but we shouldn't have even got to this point. For thousands of years humans didn't have GMOs and chemicals (but it actually dates back to thousands of years of use as well). It proves we can survive without them, especially today. Other countries ban them as well so it's obviously doable. Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't, but pointing to another problem won't solve the one before us which has more concerned people with better arguments (presumably, based on what you said that 30% are making baseless claims) anyway. The same ones who were for radioactive products and heroin as medicine? Or better ones cuz it's '16 & Super Perfect Science now? But we don't need to go out of our way to get arsenic in our diet, we do need to seek out significant amounts of water and it is good for us. That's not a good comparison. Sure, sounds good.