I think the core issue is that biology doesn't know as much as the media likes to claim it does. I mean read this: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-0

I think the core issue is that biology doesn't know as much as the media likes to claim it does. I mean read this: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/uovh-mlf052915.php#.VWzrrUM7T6Y.mailto http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/uovh-mlf05291.... If true, this effectively invalidates nearly all previous research regarding the safety of anything we inject into our blood stream because they may in fact impact the brain. Many people have a choice to make. Although the scientific community may make a consistently supported claim about something does not mean that something will turn out to be true. Creating a near-perfect predictive model of the human body for doctors to use is about as complex a task as reverse engineering a UFO (actually reverse engineering an alien space craft is still probably more simple). They are going to make mistakes along the way. So you are faced with a choice. Either take a risk with incomplete knowledge that something man made will not be harmful in the long term or keep doing most of the same stuff that we've been doing for centuries that has a known, if imperfect, outcome. Yes there are a lot of things can will probably kill you first, but does that mean you should continue to assume more risk on the claim that a predictive model that the scientific community generally endorses is correct enough to avoid harm? Then again "organic" can mean a lot of things and the lack of regulation and quality control can and has made things worse on the other end. Just because it has the label "USDA Organic" doesn't mean that the USDA or FDA has done the job you think it does. There is risk and uncertainty either way.