Bad arguments by advoates desperate to justify their positions don't help. They are bad arguments even when the positions held are truly defensible.

Lobbyists who argue against the practice of greening one's food options once the decision has already been made are stuck with the hard line: that there is no difference whatsoever. That's plainly false, just as it is false that there is no difference whatsoever between food brands or between food that comes from Guatamala or Iowa. Now that the decision has been made, the burden of proof is on the lobbyists to demonstrate that there is absolutely, categorically no relevant difference between the several options. By my reckoning, that'll be mighty hard, since differences like the living conditions of chickens plainly matter, even if not morally, at least to some people. Maybe that's why someone would revert to inane strategies like suggesting that cafeteria operators are "hooked by propaganda."

Foodfights like this can only be made of people.

If you read the article that prompted this tirade you find that the lobbyists objected to false propaganda, which resulted in the deletion of some propaganda.

Agriculture committee staffers, reflecting concerns of the egg industry, challenged a statement about the cage-free eggs used in some cafeteria meals.

It had said: “In the United States more than 95 percent of the nearly 300 million laying hens are confined to barren battery cages, unable even to spread their wings or engage in many other natural behaviors, such as nesting, foraging, perching and dust bathing. Cage-free eggs means the hens have not been confined to a battery cage.”

An editorial in the Dec. 31 issue of Feedstuffs, a weekly newspaper for agribusiness, explained why the industry wanted the statement removed: “A check of facts demonstrates that hens housed in cages are less stressed and healthier and safer.”

Bowing to pressure, Restaurant Associates edited the statement so that only the last sentence remained.

The fact is that chooks are healthier in laying cages than they are on the loose. The death loss rate is little more than half that of their free range cousins. The argument for free range birds has to be made on other grounds. Those grounds exist but they are complicated and require a fair amount of general farming background to grasp. Advocates, ignorant of reality themselves or too lazy to formulate better arguments, just make things up or rely on false but frightening twangs on heart strings. This degrades the conversation and trivializes producers. Worse, it shifts public attention to spurious issues and degrades the public debate, which the advocates will eventually lose since their claims are in fact nonsensical.

Milk lobbyists called the Green the Capitol complaint line about a characterization of the hormone rBGH, which is not permitted in milk used in the food service.

The Web site had read: “Recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH, is injected into dairy cows to artificially increase their milk production. The hormone has not been properly tested for safety. Milk labeled rBGH-free is produced by dairy cows that never received injections of this hormone.”

Milk lobbyists pointed out that the Food and Drug Administration considers the artificial hormone to be safe (although many scientists believe it may cause cancer).

The Feedstuffs editorial says rBGH milk is “as healthful and safe as milk from nontreated cows.” The Web site now reads: “Milk produced without synthetic rBGH is produced by dairy cows that never received injections of synthetic bovine growth hormone.”

BGH is BGH whether it is rBGH or not. Cows make it themselves. The idea that any milk is BGH free is false. The idea that it is dangerous in some way is false. There are no valid scientific arguments against it. This is merely propaganda and, as with the spurious free range chicken arguments, masks some better but more complicated arguments. The milk is the same but a different milk system that not only did not use rBGH but could not profit from its use has much to recommend it. rBGH is only a benefit for cows that get a very "hot" feed ration. They can make better use of the rich feed. But in other systems, such as we find in grass dairies, especially in grazing nations that lack grain in large amounts such as New Zealand, the rBGH costs more than it's worth since the cows will only milk so much on their diet no matter how much BGH they have.

This is an example of the Democrat's war against science, to invert a silly argument made by other politicized commentators. Or, more usefully, it's pandering to an ignorant constituency, politics as usual. Expect more of it, and expect more of the dispiriting sight of those in academia, even scientists, wallowing in such ignorance.