Raw vs GMO Foods
by Rachel Hoyt
image by Maggie Smith via freedigitalphotos.com
Raw is raunchy,
untainted nature,
staunchly risky,
makes bodies azure -
the harm is in the handling,
and safety is quite costly,
on germs you're gambling,
and they cheat mostly.
It's just never pure
unless processed promptly -
Resist the allure.
Raw is raunchy.
Unharmed by herbicide?
Naturally, because herbs
can't cause a suicide -
it's only weeds they perturb.
Politically proven to be
not really that different,
yet unique and patent worthy -
basic biology, bent.
Still basically pure,
certainly not suicide -
Hear the allure?
Unharmed by herbicide?
©
2013 Rachel Hoyt. All rights reserved
although science can't justify either political drive.
I'm a little confused on who you're mad at... the raw food vendors or the big agribusiness guys? My thoughts are that raw is the definition of clean (although it may not be that way once it hits shelves) and that there must be ways to make it safe (but not as a BIG business. And, those agribusiness guys? Well, I wish they didn't think that everything to do with food had to be done on such large scales and by modifying or "enhancing" nature. It's a big conundrum...
ReplyDeleteIt's a wonder today, anyone gives a hoot.
ReplyDeleteWhich food this week will our bodies pollute?
First we should never eat an egg,
then it's okay, but not a fried chicken leg.
Eating an apple never used to create a panic,
now don't even attempt unless it's organic.
From my observation, it's easy to conclude.
Not everything we eat is as bad as fast food.
A scare can make us stop drinking tea and honey,
but I tend to think it's more about big business money.
LOVE your response rhyme. It is definitely hard to figure out what foods are safe and good. :)
Delete