government subsides are to blame

You seem upset and are reading more into what I've written. I don't believe I came across as some 'organic' only advocate. However, I try to buy some things organic or maybe not organic, but non GMO when available. Many things, due to market demand, are going that direction as that is what people want. That could be because people blindly believe things about organic items that have been marketed to them, maybe they did some research and decided for themselves. In some cases it is better, some cases its probably not. That can be due to some of the guidelines that have been manipulated. For instance, a chicken company can say they have free range chickens. Most picture a prairie with happy chickens roaming free. I am not sure if its nationally or not, but in some cases free-range means they have access to a range. There could 5000 chickens in a barn with access to a small door, but only a few will ever see daylight. But, they are "free range." I realize there is propanda on both side.

I do think that with the recent marketing of organic, raw, natural, non-GMO (fill in the latest cool phrase) has helped sales on both sides--competition can create overall increases in sales. So if someone is looking at organic kale or quinoa or some other currently trendy food, but then sees that the non organic is more reasonably priced and they buy that, good for them. They've eating something different, maybe better for them than what they would have ordinarily purchased--whether organic or not.

There's a lot of factors to consider. Local farms and business can offer organic or non GMO and retailers can keep the costs lower and the food fresher because it doesn't have to travel so far. In some cases if the organic is the same price or close, why not try it? I don't like the idea of eating food that's been chemically treated so if I can get it, I'll get it, but I also don't think its going to kill me to have something that was GMO or was treated with something. Just for fun, go out and get a couple organic banana's and some regular. Do it with a few foods. Maybe check to see that it is truly organic and the company didn't bend the rules to tack the label on it. You can tell the difference in taste in a lot of cases. Do a blind taste test and you'll see. Again, I am not an organic only person, but since you pegged me as such, give it a shot.

If you care to check, there are a lot of articles that point to a Stanford study on organic food vs. regular. They say that the organic is not necessarily more nutritious, but then delve into the topic of other reasons why people may choose organic. Some article take different angles such at focusing on the chemical aspect, the taste, color, supporting local farms, etc.

Didn't this start out as a message board for a movie that was mainly about added sugar (that's what the trailer was mostly about...)?

Ok, I am done after this post so who ever wants the last commment, fine. Here's my take because I have been misunderstood--I think.

The food industry is similar to the tobacco industry. I know, blah, blah, you've already heard this one... I think people should be held accountable for their own level of health (talking about people that would otherwise be healthy if not for their bad choices--disease that start within the body is usually caused by their choices of food, drugs, smoking--what you put in your body). Tobacco companies covered up studies and research and/or funded their own to make smoking maybe not look healthy, but not look so bad. They got doctors and actors to endorse their products. I see the 'milk mustache' campaign as pretty darn close to that. (Please don't pick apart my example.) Anyway, people should be held responsible for their choices--they know too much processed food, sugar, bad fat, etc, is bad for them, despite what a company or a study says. However, food companies falsely advertise and cleverly market their products so that people choose them thinking they aren't that bad, or maybe they are even good for them. People believe what the label says because usually its backed by the FDA, RDA, USDA, and people don't think the gov't would let them say that if it was bad for them. (Yet, people know that the gov't squanders the money they get taken from them via taxes, people don't trust the gov't when it comes to politics, but they believe them about diet? Odd.) People believe what they want to believe to justify their behavior because they don't want to be responsible for themselves or their problems. They need to be more responsible, but companies need to just tell the truth and not falsely advertise, twist words, or studies, or for example say "made with real fruit" because they added 5% fruit juice to their product. Also, if its not real fruit, what is it? Of course its real--what is fake fruit? I think its plastic fruit for display, so of course if it has fruit in it, it has to be real. Anyway, people are easily fool and/or don't want to look beyond the label. Don't confuse the idea that companies need to be held accountable for their statements and actions with thinking that I am saying should be held liable for others' problems. Tobacco lied. They lied big time. Should they be responsible for people who get lung cancer for smoking? Not so much. Smoking is a process that takes many steps to complete: you have to earn money, go to the store, fork over the money, get a lighter, and smoke up. Eating bad food is a process that has many steps. Eating bad involves many steps as well. We can choose to eat better. However, we live in a world that is all about speed and convenience and people don't want to spend time making good food. Companies know this and make it cheaper and easier to ead bad. People need to see thru this.

With regards to the whole organic, natural, non-GMO push... This can actually work in favor of the big crappy food, sugar companies who lie. In a good way for those who want people to be accountable for their choices. There will be a day when a saavy attorney gets a class action law suit with 1000's of overweight diseased people in front of a liberal judge who sides in favor of the plaintiffs and says McDonalds, Hormel, (fill in the company) is LIABLE for their disease. Hopefully there is so much info out there by the 'organic' companies (or their "propaganda" as you call it) that the defense can say they did have a choice and the other information was out there. Sadly, just like tobacco and auto companies, food manufacturers are calculating what it will cost to pay off the law suits when the $hit hits the fan vs changing their ad campaigns and being truthful. They will likely end up rolling over and paying for others' problems because its cheaper.

I think you've pegged me wrong. I think people need to be responsible, I think companies should be held accountable for their misinformation, but not held liable for others' choices.

Dr. Lustig is discredited by whom? And are they in any way associated with the sugar industry?

I am providing another link with a different doctor and he also quotes other sources since you asked for peer reviewed articles.
http://drhyman.com/blog/2011/05/13/5-reasons-high-fructose-corn-syrup-will-kill-you/#close

I highly recommend the book "Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us"
written by Michael Moss.

The FDA does make a distinction among different sugars. They recommend eating plenty of fruit and said naturally occurring sugars in fruit is fine, but to limit sugar that is found in cakes, candy, etc. You can find this information in their food pyramid.

BTW, I disagree with any "study" that equates orange juice to soda. Or a candy bar to a carrot. Soda and candy makes me crash, but orange juice "kills" my oncoming cold. I really believe you have to use your own common sense since even the FDA changes their information over time.