Is Organic Food Better for Your Health? 

Just after homeopathy...

@Bartender Plus Name something that is NOT a chemical.

@Bartender Plus You made good points. Plus no one is talking about GMO's! Since they are not labelled you have no idea if you are eating them or not.

Oh but "chemicals"! Lol It's remarkable how much this pseudoscienfic myth has taken flight, embraced so often by people who argue strongly that everyone needs to pay attention to the science of climate change. It's a bizarre blind-spot for so many people who really do care about socially and environmentally-conscious policy. We need to foster a society that embraces science in all areas, not just the ones that feel good

@@malikathueler2529 oh yeah, homeopathy is the worst offender.

You're right. But the other issues such as farm worker safety and the environment and the long run effects of consuming higher and higher levels of pesticides should be addressed because otherwise people turn off their brains and think that buying conventionally grown food is the best choice simply because it may not directly harm their health. People should think more about the collapse of honey bee colonies, the spread of toxic algae, birth defects to the children of farm workers, etc., because consumer behavior can change these things much faster and better than any government regulation and/or corporate policy.

nonchalantd Oh, I am far from saying everything else is unimportant. I just appreciate that the video adequately addressed a single topic, rather than tying to give a brief overview of everything. It's better to know what IS and what IS NOT a concern, after all. For example, instead of worrying about health, people should worry about the things you mentioned.

Organic. What a term. Oh, how I love the euphemisms and self-induced stupidity of the US media. Well, how in hell could you grow anything NON-organically? Organic (in its strict biological term) refers simply to using organic chemistry, ie most hydro-carbons. Strangely enough even plastics are ORGANIC chemistry. Yes I do know that organic has a different meaning in everyday life for most people. But once again a simple scientific term is used in a way the media have used it over and over again until it has lost its original meaning. What I also like is that the video does not touch on the environmental issues. Which actually is the central reason for me to buy organic (or as it is called in the German media Bio; same stupdity in media, other term) rather than conventionally grown foods. Not for their supposedly greater nutritional values, but rather for the effects on the environment (or rather, the lesser environmental impact). Eating a varied diet of fresh produce is the best health care insurance you can have. Not simply organic foods; rather it pertains to ANY varied diet. True, even with only biological fertilizers such as manure and urine you can achieve an overly nutrigenated and phosphorized soil which seeps into the ground water, contaminating it. But to that we don't have to add further chemical components of which we know nothing at the moment how they will decompose, maybe get chemically altered during their time seeping into the ground water, etc. as these processes sometimes take up to a hundred years or more depending on the soil permeability, rock layers, strata, and topology. Again, if the choice is to either starve to death or eat chemically treated, chemically fertilized, artificially produced foods I would personally choose the latter over the former. But once there is an abundance of healthy food grown why not decide on the version with the least environmental impact (including worker saftey, animal care, etc)? Which probably does not include pesticide-resistant crops which are dosed with ever increasing dosages of pesticides to keep the ever-more-resistant pests from destroying the crops.

Organic food is quite disastrous for the environment. Energy use will increase because even though organic farming does not use synthetic N-fertilizer your yields are lower even when you are growing food and most of the time you are not growing food, the field is fallow or covered in some cover crop like alfalfa, clover or peas. The Rodale institute (proponents of organic) gives the energy required to grow one acre of organic at 60% of the energy required for one field of conventional, which by no means makes up for the losses and overhead in organic. Organic farming is highly dependent on a large population of livestock to provide fertilizer, which ultimately comes from mined or artificially fixed nitrogen (haber-bosch supplies 50-60% of fixed nitrogen in food). Since there cannot be a quadrillion cows on fed by conventionally grown crops, if organic farming accounted for 100% of farming the amount of land under the plow would more than double, as would water demands. Farming is by far the most environmentally destructive thing we do and doubling the land area under the plow is significantly insane. CO2 emissions are peanuts compared to taking the worlds best, most productive land and turning it into a desert for all the creatures we share the Earth with (if they did eat the wheat we'd declare them pests and fence off, shoot or otherwise inhibit or discourage them; this is true must be true even for organic farming, otherwise you would have to increase the land area yet again to account for loses to pests)

RustyDust101 I like to point out that "conventional" pesticides are organic chemicals and that some of the pesticides used by organic farming are inorganic chemicals (e.g. copper sulfate). It usually drives them spare as none of them know any chemistry.

It's a common term used in statistics to say that the data you have and the study you made shows there is no difference, instead of saying "They are the same" which is really hard conclusion to make using statistics. And since health studies are often done using statistics... well guess what? You find this term very very very often.

A term which is used in a lot of scientific research.

Nyx & Hemera It’s also a joke within this comment.

Colter DeWitt Only if he isn't correct...

+Colter DeWitt *your

Usually yes. But sometimes you dont want to waste your time. Public discorse is not 12D chess. Its propaganda and sophistry. That being said, healthcare triage is pretty good.

This. But upholding the supposed health benefits of eating organic food distracts from the real problems of industrial-processed food and takes away from good will and motivation that could have been used to fight the real problems

Deshara That's an interesting point. I think I agree.

JoshSaysStuff Please, elaborate on how Monsanto is "awful". People always say this without knowing anything about the company.

Selling seeds to third-world farmers that have to be re-bought after the first yield, suing farmers for having wind-blown Mon Santo seeds in their fields, and exploiting poverty for the sake of creating a world market.

***** You could argue, therefore, that arguing, discussing, or informing regarding any significant topic is pointless, and that words, votes, and working in a large group has no significant meaning.

Totally agree. We may be able to feed the whole population more easily now with non-organic food but will we in the future when all land is exausted, bees are killed etc.? We also should throw that much food away. We produce enough to feed the whole starving population twice (or even more, forgot the exact numbers), but all the food goes to the "first world" where a lot of it just goes to waste. On the health topic: Whet exactly are the maximum levels for pesticides/fertilizers? A lot of people argue that they are way to high. Plus often it's not taken into consideration how they react together and maybe become more harmful. Or each substance is within the guidelines but there are 100 substances used for one product.

It's all an argument of long-term cost for short-term gain or short-term gain for long-term cost. Unfortunately we're a country of fat stimulation addicts who're too hyped up on their pathological caffeine addiction to be able to recognize the fact that letting coal companies burn down courthouses to take people's rightful land from them so they can destroy an entire mountain for slightly cheaper energy isn't a good idea just cause it shaves a penny off one of their monthly bills

get people to like insects more than herbivore meat. they convert more of the food given to them as food to be eaten and do not have ailments that can be passed on to humans other than what is being eaten raw if done so. insects also can be made into patties that can have no difference in texture than a normal hamburger. organically raised food is not just the one way to feed ourselves, we can also include multiple plant harvesting in one area so to keep water and moisture content more even year round while still having pests fight each other for dominance in a area in a mono-crop zone.

Deshara Hey man, I have a pathological caffeine addiction, but I don't support coal companies or agribusiness.

Deshara get people interested in Liquid Flourid Thorium Reactors, (LFTR) they could replace coal, uranium, butane, and oil as stationary energy production facilities on most continents. TED talks has more definable info on them with people to discuss it with.

Everything is organic, GE or not. Farming methods and genetic engineering do not change the fact that food crops are made up of carbon-based molecules. To see this tiny world, we'll need a ship.

Very true that everything is organic. Most ordinary people though that do not remember chemistry from school have been confused into thinking that organic means natural, as opposed to "containing carbon." I'll argue that the fertilizers used in non-organic is synthetic and not carbon based. That is the basis of my comment.

AirCooledMan2006 Ms. Frizzle, is that you?

Let it also be known that if the title of the video or article is a question, the answer is almost certainly "no".

Can buy a bicycle a year with the money you save and cycle to work burning off teh fat...

+Lynn Proctor False. Leaving and coming back from the Vietnam war I saw many fat people. How about the beauty contests in the 20s and 30s? Terrible and one sided, but good attempt at false rhetoric.

+Joe Bamba At no point did I say or indicate that people do not get fat if they eat organic foods. Fat people have existed since the dawn of time, no doubt, as the Romans and other ancient cultures had their share. So, your observation of fat people in Vietnam is not surprising. Fat people are everywhere, if you look. I was referring to the percentage, as news reels from the 50's and 60's, even the 70's do not show a lot of fat people in the crowds. People are thin, mostly. Back then, our food was not sprayed as much or at all with growth enhancers. Look this up. You will learn some things, I hope. There are other factors than organic/sprayed at work here. A lot has to do with the prevalence of eating prepared food. The Chinese are eating more of a western diet, as are other nations. And they are getting fat. Again, it up, don't take my world for it. Organic is one cause, I didn't mean it was the ONLY cause. It is still the quality of our food and the chemicals that companies want us to ingest in the name of profit. You do not explain what you mean by your reference to the beauty contests. And, my "rhetoric" is based on many hours of research of all that I mentioned in my post. This isn't something I pulled out of thin air. It pays to do your own research, and not rely solely on your Vietnam observations. It will open your mind to other knowledge and the complexities and health impacts of unhealthy eating and the tainting of our food supply. Those in denial will continue to eat what they want, and their health will deteriorate as a result. Bon Appetit!

even bananas? not me, non organic banana have no flavor to me

@@groundedinfirstprinciples383 Organic bananas are better. They're much sweeter. Organic strawberries are so juicy.

Thanks!

Agreed, data does not care about your feelings.

I agree! I've debated watching this video for a while because I knew it was going to make me angry. He left so much information out! If anybody is going to inform others about organic they must understand the differences between organic, local, and sustainable!!!

organic foods use pesticides too, you know, Just 'organic' pesticides, which aren't much better (if at all).

No to mention that because they do not work as well as conventional pesticides, significantly more "organic" pesticide needs to be used.

does anyone here search what includes under organic pesticides before claiming it is "the same" or even "worse"? I just wondering if comments are based on scientific facts or rather than so-called "common sense" which is often incorrect.

Nhat Linh Nguyen This may shed some light: blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

Makes what difference though. You never state how they are better. Also opinion counts for nothing. What actual scientific data do you have?

We bought a 1/4 cow that was raised on grass only or something, given free range, and lovingly cuddled every night by orphans. Ok that last one was a joke. It was good meat, but to be honest, I couldn't really tell the difference between that beef and the stuff I get at my local chain. I did save money buying it that way but it was not convenient to go buy a few hours away and then store it. Plus a fresh steak at the local meat counter is way better than anything frozen for 6 months.

I think you fail to realize that organic food also uses pesticides - they use 'organic' pesticides. You need to understand that organic is not healthy. Sodium Cyanide, for example, is 100% organic. Organic pesticides are generally far less effective, and are comparable in the amount of damage they do to the environment and human health. Copper Sulfate, for example, builds up in soil and is very toxic.

@@CplHenderson this is true. And it is the same fore fertilizer. I would rather put on a nice clean, non stinky, bag of fertilizer that has been formulated to only include what is needed to grow the crop, than pile on manure that has all kinds of other stuff in it.

No, unsafe is what matters. It's not horseshoes.

Gwinnett Magazine You don't think that they do research to set safety levels? What evidence do you have that there is a need for concern?

Healthcare Triage not in the US no... as far as I know the policy is: To forbids something the state has to proof that in in fact is dangerous for ones health Most studies on the products are done by the industry which of course do not want to proof that their product isd potentially dangerous and there are hardly any free-idependant researches. So yeah, all is good unless it isn't prooven otherwise. In the EU it's the other way around, we forbid anything until it's proven to be no risk for ones health, and we still have hardly any manipulated food and pesticides are way more restricted than in the US

+Healthcare Triage Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. This is a very surprising shift in tone in a channel that makes so much effort to break down studies and scrutinize their methods, and this should be especially relevant for research and recommendations coming from a body that may be particularly sensitive to politics as the government. Furthermore, while food safety is a concern, the title of the video is questioning if "Organic Food is Better for Your Health", and when it comes to the crowd who are generally interested in organic produce, "safe" is a very low bar to clear, and that does not answer the question if more pesticides may be less healthy, even if it does not cross a threshold of being "dangerous".

+Ethan Truong Moving the goalpost is also a logical fallacy.

ME too, but this is healthcare triage's worst video.

"for people to...digest." AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! :D

I don't like that he didn't mention GMO's, which is my main concern when buying organic.

Ross Garcia Probably because there there's nothing worth mentioning about GMOs. If he were to do a video on them, it would be very much like this one: lots and lots and lots of studies, zero evidence that GMOs are in any way harmful. To wit, the wonderful Norman Borlag, mentioned in the video above, saved those billions of lives specifically by creating GMOs.

I bet studies said the same thing about cigarettes, lead paint, asbestos, second hand smoke, MSG, upon other things that were harmless in the beginning. I'm not saying GMO's are harmful but I'll wait 20-30 more years to believe it and embrace them.

Ross Garcia You better stop eating almost everything except rocks then, since almost every plant species in the world grown for food has been bred for specific traits the same way GMO food is created. The only difference is GMO food is an instant change made by mixing plants of the same family together in a lab while farmers take a few decades to breed things like seedless bananas (go look up what they used to look like!). Look up "TomTato" - completely non-genetically modified plants that have the tops of tomatoes and the bottoms of potato plants. This sort of thing is what our food industry is built on!

Yea he kind of spins it in a coercive direction, but he says little about the continued health and ecosystemic integrity of the planet, which is why most people stick with organic. No endangered honey bees are poisoned on organic farms, no poultry have their legs broken from the sheer weight of their breasts, and no plants are genetically engineered to withstand stronger versions of Monsanto pesticides. Its you, the plant, and the planet. What its been for millennia until industrialization brought our planet to ecological crisis.

SystemFreaKk13 To be fair, the title says "Is Organic Food Better For Your Health" not "Is Organic Food Better For The Ecosystem"

Probably because the former is easier to undermine than the latter.

There is also the obvious point where your health is connected to and dependent on the health of the ecosystem.

SystemFreaKk13 Not technically true. Also, your point about GM foods being able to withstand stronger pesticides, not true. GM allows for better use of pesticides and lower use of them as well. I do agree about the points on bees and mistreatment of animals. However, that doesn't make organic a better option if you cannot afford to eat it. Organic food is significantly more expensive in lower income environments. The simple economics then dictates that if you have to eat non-organic food which is cheaper or something organic but less of it or with restricted choices (and therefore less healthy perhaps), I'd suggest going with non-organic.

now you just have to show your data. This video did that. If you have better data, make your own video and link here. Else STFU

That's not entirely accurate.

Also, let's get our terminology right. Food is HEALTHFUL, not healthy. There's a difference. Healthy is a condition. Healthful is a property. Look at a carrot, for example. A carrot isn't healthy. It's a dead root pulled up from the ground. Sure, it's got vitamin A, but that doesn't make it healthy, only healthful. When that carrot starts doing push-ups and running marathons, then we can talk healthy.

AirCooledMan2006 this is a mighty fine point.

If it's fresh it's still alive, for a period of time.

@@DarDarBinks1986"When that carrot starts doing push-ups and running marathons, then we can talk healthy." Lol.

***** That's a very hyperbolic argument. Also, when 0gracefuklgirl0 refers to sustainable, she is likely referring to locally grown food as opposed to industrially grown food, something this video rarely addressed, but was mentioned favorably when it was. When you take a point to an illogical extreme, you sound like the "homeopathic holistic horseshit peddlers" that you so oppose.

Please, please, please do not confuse organic and local foods. Local produce is good because the time between produce being picked and consumed is much shorter than those sold in supermarkets.

No, they aren't the same thing, but both have environmental advantages over "regularly" grown food. Also there is less transportation needed, so fewer fossil fuels. Organic is generally better for the ecosystem in which its grown because there aren't as many unnatural or foreign elements being introduced. Sometimes local is organic, sometimes its not.

***** You need to calm down. Many agricultural advancements that we made are more natural, like planting crops that repel bugs next to plants that would be destroyed by those bugs. Also those diseases were causes by poor water regulation and sewage more than anything. Clearly people have been living off of agriculture since its invention, and animals can hunt for their foods just fine. Sure technological advancement has its place to ensure better use of space and resources to grow foods, but it is not the end all be all answer to a better food system

***** I didn't say they were the same, but both are better options that buying "regular" food. If a food were local and organic would be best, but one does not imply the other.

Well constructed thought sir.

This is why I believe organic is actually way worse for the environment. Some of the tech used in conventional farming is amazing, they measure the soil and only apply enough of what that patch of soul needs. That is science in use to create food more efficiently.

Plus smaller organic companies like to dabble in conspiracy theories in order to turn people towards their organic produce. It's a whole market based on fear towards turning people away from the non-organic market. You look at sites like Alex Jones Infowars, David Icke etc. as well as the herbal remedies/natural market and they advertise these small organic companies which are probably run by unhinged Libertarian free market types.

smaller local farms, which produce fresh and natural food and don't label them organic, don't increase price that much, like those who label "organic"... so, yeah, this is largely about money... actually, without any "organic" labels, if person reads what is put into food and investigates the company's policy, he can choose product, which is grown naturally, without many pesticides etc. etc. "organic" labels are for lazy people, who are more likely to pay 3 times more money than put effort and investigate which companies make natural healthy food without crazy price increasing

Kate Senatskaya Yeah, it seems like a 'big brand' thing now. And what's truly heart breaking is a starving Ethiopian Child, wouldn't really care whether the food they need to stay alive is Organic or had Pesticides on them? If it keeps them alive for another day? These Organic conspiracy nuts are inadvertently killing people with what they're doing.

Ya'll niggas stay thinkin' EvErYtHiNg Is AbOuT moooney 🤪 ; Organic food existed before the label AAAND before the invention of GMO;

The methods haven't changed too much and many harvesters still acquire all kinds of cancers and other diseases. I agree with you that people don't seem to care about the health of the people picking their food and it's an important topic.

That's your opinion. Science doesn't give a fuck about your opinion

Arbi Daci bit harsh no? I'm all for science, science is my homeboy, and i think it does 'give a fuck" about this perspective. Science isn't just limited to direct nutritional intake or direct harm from consumption. There's also psychological and environmental effects studied in science. And "better" might encompass how food production broadly effects our health. But I think tiesthijsthejs does raise a valid concern. And what is science without a good dose of debated opinions?

Arbi Daci Don't understand you. You don't care about sciences like sociology, anthropology, political science, psychology and health & medical related sciences? These study the relations between people and between people and their environments. Like taste, or perception, or cultural roles for identity. Did I ever argue that organic food isn't scientifically disassociated with healthier patterns?

Evan Witt Sure. But the word "except" signals a contrasting or confrontational argument. Yet, did I ever state that the social relation (which can be empirically studied) with food, does not entail a material cost, as with organic food and its price of unsustainability? I don't see how we exclude each other. Indeed, I don't see a 6 to 7 billion urbanized global population living of local slow food (as in, not globally optimally assembled). Although, there could be some grey areas where huge amounts of people could integrate local trading (food for money or chores or services) within their urban communities, producing their own gardens in cities - if this entails small scale structures within highly structured larger systems. Alongside the local energy alternatives (beyond hippie-stuff).There are perhaps scenario's in which urban consumers are more involved in their foods, exploiting their own environments more efficiently according to organic principles, or at least regularly acquiring just a few ingredients of such sorts.

Evan Witt Completely worth a try but it should be in government hands. Monsanto has proved time and time again that it is dangerous to patent life the way it does.

Yes. Organic produce uses less environmentally unsafe chemicals. That is not addressed in this video as the author says.

Michael Polidori Ace Mendez Ben Miller If USDA and FDA regulations can't protect the organic label then we have to elect the politicians who truly want to protect the public interest, don't take money from biotechs and who will appoint true regulatory watchdogs interested in doing their jobs and honestly protecting our food supply. Biotech CEOs and board members are waging war against organic products, including manipulating the FDA/USDA and politicians into joining the attack. Organic produce, by definition, is sustainable. There is no other widespread method of farming that is sustainable. Farming techniques that rely on chemical inputs to which insect and plant pests develop resistance to, is not sustainable and dramatically pollutes our environment (lakes rivers, streams, ground water, soil and the people and animals that eat the contaminated food). Remember DDT? Today's DDTs are the nicotine-based insecticides. Nicotinyls, at sub-lethal doses, cause confusion in insects. They are believed to be involved in Colony Collapse Disorder, where honeybees don't return from foraging. After a few weeks there is nothing left but the brood, the Queen and honey. the hive then dies. After a way-too-long ten years of study, the EU banned three of the most widely used neonics for causing CCD, which is being fought in EU courts by several insecticide companies. Nicotine-based insecticides are used to coat GMO seeds to protect the majority from insects in soil, before they sprout. A trick for better yield. The amount of nicotine insecticide in the flowering plant (just from the seed coating) is still potent enough to cause sub-lethal effects in many insects (months after soil, water and weather would have eliminated other pesticides, including those allowed on organic crops). The persistence of these insecticides is a major part of the problem, accumulating in the hives and the honey. When the FDA/USDA first took over regulating organic produce and livestock they tried to include in the definition of organic the following - 1. crops grown with municipal sludge 2. irradiated foods 3. gene-altered plants and animals 300,000+ emails and comments on govt web pages prevented this from happening. It would have been the end of organic foods as soon as the FDA/USDA took over. And that would have been fine with biotech corporate CEOs and Board Members. Organics are a growing market, gaining 20% per year. Biotech wants them to fail, and the FDA/USDA are helping that process along. When GMOs came along the FDA refused to regulate them, declaring them to be substantially equivalent to conventional and organic foods, so they didn't need regulation. But the FDA can't explain why they regulate organics (the safest food we can eat or feed our kids) and not GMO (food designed to kill insects or be immune to herbicide and the most unsafe of all foods ever allowed on American plates.). There were many other attempted degradations of organic standards attempted through political decisions and influenced appointing of bureaucrats. The worst of these crimes are ongoing. President Obama and other democrats, as well as Republicans, have taken hefty donations from biotech companies like Monsanto and Syngenta and they are getting their payoff. 1. Michael Taylor, a long-time Monsanto/Biotech employee and lawyer, is now the deputy FDA commissioner, appointed by President Obama. 2. The 1990 FDA decision to allow biotech's patented contaminated DNA-altered GMOs onto our plates without FDA regulation or even a label 3. A recent Supreme Court decision allowing biotech companies to sue farmers for growing as little as 1% of their crop with any patented gene-altered biotech crop. This will help drive out all conventional and organic farmers from the market The Supreme Court doesn't care how the farmers' crops (even organic) came to be contaminated with GMO or even if the farmer never took advantage of the patented crops' special traits. Once the 1% threshold is crossed farmers owe the owning biotech company a per acre technology fee, reimbursement of seed costs, reimbursement of legal costs, as well as punitive damages. A farmer cannot realize any benefit from using GMO unless at least 80% of his crop is GMO AND he takes advantage of the traits. He will still experience at least a 20% crop loss and can only hope the yield will increase enough to compensate. No farmer would willingly take such a chance using contaminated seed. He would buy non-gmo seeds or give up and get into the contracts with biotech companies. Biotech companies have been buying seed companies for more than a decade in an effort to force farmers to buy their expensive seed and pay a per/acre technology fee every-time the crops are planted. They must buy new seed for every planting (farmers are forbidden from saving seed). These practices are going to increase food costs and cause more people to starve... in addition to the 25,000+ that die everyday from starvation related causes. We need to properly utilize all farmland with machines and best farming practices, which will take a lot of investment in subsistence farming and share-croppers throughout th planet. Biotech needs to be stopped and organic (our only widespread truly sustainable farming practice) needs to be protected and encouraged throughout the world. As always, For the protection of children, In the interests of Science and Truth, Michael Polidori

Ben Miller Indeed, water is a chemical. Perhaps we should stop watering plants to make sure they stay organic with no chemical inputs. People get too upset at the word chemicals and like you said, everything is chemicals.

The claim that there are some chemicals unsafe for the environment is not the claim that all chemicals are bad. Furthermore I say we read the research on the specific chemicals used in factory farming before deciding. No use getting emotional or badgering people over the questions they ask or clarifications they make. I was simply stating the claim to answer someone's question. I could be wrong. That's the difference between reasonable people and idiots on the internet. Idiots assume you are always personally attacking them just because you disagree or might disagree. My mind can change based on the data. I'm not an idiot.

Michael Polidori Not only better for the environment but better for our nutrition and health. "Ben" and "stitch" imply all chemicals are natural and harmless. DDT & dioxin are just two of the ugly faces of industrial chemicals responsible for death, injury and destruction for millions of people and animals around the globe and in our oceans. Thalidomide was a thoroughly studied chemical drug that deformed tens of thousands of babies around the planet, as well as causing many more still births and spontaneous abortions. Thalidomide is on the market again as Thalomid. Vioxx is another chemical drug, supposedly well-studied, but deaths Vioxx was causing were hidden by Merck CEOs, executives and scientists. Just in the USA it was estimated by The Lancet that 38,000 to 60,000 Americans were killed by the drug. Many more permanently injured by heart attacks and strokes. The Union Carbide plant that released chemical gases in India in 1984 killed 20,000 and caused chronic injuries in 120,000 more (many still alive and suffering today, as DOW and Union Carbide refuse to properly compensate the victims and their families). www.greenpeace.org/india/en/news/bhopal-disaster-still-unresolv/ "Ben's" and "stitch's" comments implying all chemicals are natural and equally risky would be laughable if not for the horrible truth. Why would anyone make such comments? Organic farming methods start with the soil, which must be treated and nourished in accordance with organic standards for three years before any crops grown in them qualify for the organic label. Properly cared for soil is LIVE soil with a variety of microorganisms in it that ensure a broad range of nutrients and minerals in the soil are available for crops to absorb for their own growth and our nutrition. Factory farming with multiple poisonous chemical inputs applied the year round kill most microorganisms preventing the replenishment of many of the micro-nutrients necessary in our diets. These chemical inputs and their metabolites (what they break up into) persist for weeks months or years in our environment, continuing to do damage to all living creatures.

Joseph Beck that's the problem. people think conventional is GMO. that's what's wrong with the video. there are 3 types of food and this video makes it seem like there is only 2. that's misleading. organic, conventional, and GMO. there is really no difference between conventional and organic when it comes to nutrition. But GMO foods are terrible for consumption. this video doesn't mention GMO. so technically he is right.

0:48 have you even watched the video?!

But not everything is Biological. ;)

girls are also getting better nutrition these days

snapplecapfact www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/25/early-puberty-growing-up-faster That's true but what I dislike about that argument is it does not factor in growth hormones. Growth hormones fed to livestock cause them to mature faster then people eat them. This seems like an important thing to examine when considering that girls (and boys) are becoming sexually mature much earlier than before. We're talking age 6 in some cases. You've heard the old saying 'you are what you eat'.

RizenLink Remember that correlation is not a valid argument for saying one thing causes another. What snappelcapfact was getting at is that there is just as much evidence that nutrition causes early puberty.

SparrowFae But saying nutrition is the cause without examining the growth hormones is like saying global warming is caused by natural cycles without looking at the effects of greenhouse gasses. One could say the same 'correlation is not a valid argument' about nutrition too. More nutrition as the cause is a theory but not a study as far as I know. My point is that hormones specifically need to be examined. Hormones make animals grow and mature faster; that's what they do. I can at least go with probable cause for hormones to be studied as a factor to kids sexually maturing several years earlier. The video was about organic vs non organic foods so looking at the effects of growth hormones fits with that. tl;dr I would like to see the effects of hormones specifically studied.

1.) Hormones in food don't do anything unless you're making a puree of your meat and vegetables and injecting it directly into your bloodstream. When you eat food, proteins (i.e. hormones) are broken down by first pass metabolism and are not longer active. This is the same reason diabetics have to inject insulin, body-builders have to inject steroids, and you can drink snake venom. 2.) Even if the animals you eat are never given hormones, they STILL HAVE HORMONES. All living things make hormones of some kind and you'd still be eating them, but again, that doesn't matter thanks to first pass metabolism. If puberty is happening earlier in humans, it has nothing to do with hormones in food.

+RTWrename He said that. Thank you for pointing it out.

Chris Read Yes I have some variety, one of them is the tomato, I have bull ,plum and cherry (tomato)

I had Sweet Solanato as well, the black ones I never tried, you made me curious, nice one

What I love about science is as soon as you publish an idea, every scientist with an interest in your data is going to try and disprove you. If your idea survives, then you are most likely correct. At least until better data comes along.

For what it's worth, as far as I can tell, major food corporations seldom own farms, especially for vegetables. The farmers selling to big supermarkets are still private citizens living in rural communities.

Elliott Collins Kroger has it's own brand of organics called "Simple Truth." ir.kroger.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=106409&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1737697 Kroger is definitely not buying these foods from local farms, and I find fault with that.

The amount of "organic" food exported from China is pretty staggering, too. And you know you can count on the Chinese not to do anything shady, right?

A variety of pesticides are used in conventional farming, the type depends on the crop, the climate, the local pests and government restrictions. The restrictions on a pesticide will generally give you a clue on how detrimental it is, either to human health or in terms of environmental impact. The majority, if not all pesticides used in the US will not have an affect on human health (short of being found in massive quantities or consumed neat), otherwise they wouldn't be licensed for sale and use. I hope this answers some questions :)

Look up Glyphosate from Monsanto...Yum. Really good for you!

David Allen Actually that's an example for one that doesn't seem to be much of an issue, in fact it's much better than the stuff it largely replaced.

Janani Arunachalam +

not persé, organic foods also have their drawbacks, either method has repercussions for the environment regardless, it just depends which you consider worse or in this case which you know of, because everyone knows about the bad of chemically grown food but let me ask have you ever heard anyone say something bad about organic? it's not a miracle food, all processes will have drawbacks

Daniel Schoop I've heard bad things said or organic. Primarily that it can't feed as many people. Most of the environmental concerns I've heard about traditional involve the pesticides. How they contaminate water supplies and have been hugely detrimental to the bee population for example.

This is the more important argument, yes. Ultimately, he's addressing a smaller concern that doesn't nearly settle the Organic/Synthetic debate.

This whole video is BS...

Wouldn't you be better off calling your representatives to ask for stricter labor laws then? I'm sure there are plenty of bad employers growing organic food too.

Or rather, fresh food tastes better? :D

Yes, that too. But even after storage or freezing it still taste better.

Abílio Carlos Pedro Correia I'm sure there are a few non organic products that taste really good, just as there are organic products that don't necessarily taste good. Flavor is dependant on lot's of factors, most of them have nothing to do with the wether or not a vegetable or fruit was threated with fertilizers, insecticides or antibiotics. Most of them are dependant on the genetic metabolism predetermination of the plant, the amount of flavonoids or vitamines it makes and maduration stage. Seeing that the plant variety has nothing to do with whether or not it's organic i would say they are both probably using the same ones. And would have similar flavors under the same conditions.

+Lacocacolaman Mike Adams is an AIDS denialist, anti-vaccer, chem-trail believing snake oil salesman.

+gskibum whatever but what does that have to do with the rest of what I said?

any proof?

+Kate Senatskaya farmwars.info/?p=11515 What proof do you have that didn't come from the people that make the seeds/sell the herbicide and or pesticides?

Many proponents of organic food claim health benefits. I would even argue that is usually the main selling point.

Anders Leander Organic foods are grown with pesticides and herbicides, just the "natural" versions, which are less effective and more toxic.

Diana Peña A blanket statement like "less effective and more toxic" is misleading. My understanding is that some of the "natural" pesticides and herbicides can be that way BUT, and this is the hugely important part, the "natural" version are less well researched than synthetic ones and thus we don't actually know the impact of their use at industrial scale.

How do GMOs "ravage the land" again?

madattak Please read what I wrote: "Heavy use of agricultural techniques which use pesticides, chemicals and GMO over the past 30 years has destroyed about 40% of arable land on Earth - that is not sustainable." GMO's alone are not responsible for the entire problem... but rather it is a cumulative effect of over-farming. As I stated, classical agriculture is outdated and unsustainable. We should have been growing foods in fully automated vertical farms that do not depend on external weather conditions, are fully self-sufficient and combine Omega Gardens style growth (by having the plants fight against gravity) along with aquaponics, aeroponics and hydroponics. That way, all of the food production can be accomplished locally (no need for transportation), it would be fresh, would not require GMO's pesticides or chemicals (in such a closed system, pests and weather conditions are not a factor). Plus, the structures in question can be designed with a combination of piezoelectric, geothermal, wind and solar power for power and heat production (although, you can eliminate the need for artificial heating if you simply use materials which keep the internal temperature of the building at specific levels). And with atmospheric water generators, these structures can produce their own water (actual food production would reduce water use by at least 75% compared to regular agriculture). Agriculture is inefficient and unsustainable. I find it ridiculous that people keep trying to solve problems using outdated ways of thinking that conform to the current system (which is what got us into this mess in the first place).

madattak Personally, I do not care about the artificial monetary cost. I wonder whether we have the science, the physical resources and the know how to make it happen, and we did since at least 1970-ies. Having said that... even cost is not that much of an issue. With 75% less water used and closed systems that produce their own water, power and even heat (plus without using pesticides or chemicals), these things (even in the monetary system) pay for themselves in the long run quite fast. One can also combine LED lighting (proper frequency emitting light) with Omega Gardens to gain further 30% increase in food growth speed (in addition to the average 3x increase from omega gardens that force the plants to fight against gravity) and reduce power consumption a lot in the long run. Some of the things that probably curb widespread use of this technology is the intricate problem of looking at everything from the perspective of 'how much money something costs'. That said, hydroponics ARE being used in several countries as are automated vertical farms. In the monetary system, if an industry relies a lot on say traditional agriculture and makes lots of profits from that, it will be less likely to switch over to something different, because the initial monetary cost of switching over to say superior methods of production (that will pay for themselves in the long run) will be relatively large (most companies prefer to use existing systems until they can no longer be used - which wouldn't be a problem if the currently used systems were actually sustainable and efficient, but alas, they are NOT, hence why a radical change is needed). Also, it is not a commonality that companies would 'jump' at a technology simply because it exists.An example of this would be that we had the ability to create a mass transit global system with vacuumed maglev trains that would achieve speeds of 2000 miles per hour back in 1974. At the time, it would have taken 10 years to make the transition if we unleashed all of our science and technology into doing that (plus, maglev is at least 50 to 100 times more energy efficient than standard and high speed trains). Alas, it did not happen probably due to a combination of vested interests and cost efficiency prohibitions (but we had more than enough resources and technology to do it - heck, we could have used present rails and train carriages/cars which would be broken down into base elements and then reconstituted through chemical manipulation into superior synthetic materials that can be made in sustainable abundance with no damage to the environment, suitable for maglev [and other] construction). The monetary system wants to ensure that technology is not just 'cost efficient', but also highly profitable before being used. Investors are very stingy when it comes to investing into sustainable practices, because Capitalism is mainly about 'consumption' and profits... not 'sustainability' and well-being of Humans and the environment. Companies want to ensure maximum return at lowest possible investment, even if it means charging 100x more compared to the actual manufacturing cost (that is if you want to look at it from a monetary point of view) - this means they usually wait a long time before moving on to 'better' systems ('better' meaning marginally better in the monetary system - the point is to keep making profits at lowest possible costs). Some countries are more sustainability oriented and they are using these technologies, but even for them, the transition is slow because they do it from the monetary point of view (ensuring its cheap enough to produce at a profit). Keeping the discussion on topic, there has been a recent study which tested the amounts of nutrients such as Vitamin C in various foods as can be read here: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3005061/Are-ready-prepared-fruit-veg-healthy-think-Tests-far-lower-levels-vitamin-C-unprepared-produce.html It has been ascertained that severely low amounts of Vitamin C were present in such foods due to the amount of time they spent travelling from the place of production to processing, packaging, and then sitting on the shelves for long amount of time. Organics are likely to be produced locally, and as such will probably contain higher levels of nutrients because the time frame between the harvest and selling was far shorter compared to conventionally grown crops (even ones with GMO's). This would indicate that other vitamins (and likely minerals) are in much smaller quantities than what is even stated for RDA values (most of which are set to too low levels as is) when we use conventionally grown crops for comparison. Furthermore, exposure to pesticides and chemicals is reduced when consuming organic products - that much we do understand (however, whether they have a negative effect on internal organs or nutrient absorption through a cumulative effect is something which is not well understood - although, we do understand that for example, heavy use of antibiotics in livestock results in antibiotic resistant bacteria - those same antibiotics are absorbed by Humans which probably creates an imbalance in the intestinal flora, impacting the immune system).

It's hard to say because there is no real 'definition' of organic but most organizations that certify allow for a number of pesticides, a lot of them derived from microroganisms. When growing up on an organic farm we regularly used the Bt toxin (which is only environmentally friendly as long as you indiscriminately spray it on your fields, not when you deliberately deliver it via GMOs)

5 things; A) You're a musician and he is a healthcare professional. B) "This video has only talked about health benefits that occur directly from consumption of the products. This looks at the micro picture and ignore the systemic issue involved with conventional agriculture." The title of the video: "Is Organic Food Better for Your HEALTH?" Doesn't mention politics, economy, or ethics. He mentions there are reasons to eat organically, but the pro-organic message uses health benefits as a reason to make the switch. That is the myth he is trying to stamp out. In fact he reiterates this point and says that if your eating organic for other reasons then fine, but don't argue against non-organic because it less healthy. C) "Stick to the facts, Healthcare Triage". They provided links to all the studies mentioned in the video. "The environmental risks scales are less, so LOGICALLY, overall less people will have negative health effects--is that not a health benefit?" is your best argument on the topic but even then it's not a fact. You haven't brought any facts to the table. Do you not find that a bit hypocritical? D) "Lastly, this video purported to deal only with the direct health effects and then went on to make (or comment on) an argument about feeding the world's population. This is disingenuous." This is a bit nit picky. Does that part of the video really matter? It's still related to the topic; his point still stands. E) I liked your audio mixing tutorials, you should post more of them.

cabrita309 Hah. Thanks for the response and I'm glad you liked my vids. Firstly, I don't think I'm being hypocritical as I was not attempting to present facts. Instead I was trying to show a part of 'health' (related to the ecosystem and not consumption directly) that I see as being left out of this video. I think you're being a little unfair. I did not argue that the facts he presented were incorrect (and there are some great comments that do just that if you take the time), I argued that he strayed into opinion and political arguments while purporting to only present the facts. And yes, I think it does matter. You have a very knowledgeable public speaker who presents a show "Is Organic Food Better for Your Health?". He proves his case well, I don't dispute that. He then goes on the present an opinion (it's not necessarily his). My point is: Organic food is not (necessarily) better for your health /= we can't feed the world with organic agriculture/organic agriculture is bad. Unfortunately, because of the order in which this is presented, people are led to that conclusion. "but the pro-organic message uses health benefits as a reason to make the switch. That is the myth he is trying to stamp out. In fact he reiterates this point and says that if your eating organic for other reasons then fine, but don't argue against non-organic because it less healthy." Which is exactly why I was so disappointed with the video. He went on to argue that organics are bad for reasons other than the case he presented. This is precisely what bothered me. Which is why I said stick to the facts.

The ecoli is less in noo organic, as the food has all been irradiated!

But have you tried organic milk? It's the best thing evar if you're a big milk drinker. Organic 1% is as creamy as normal whole milk and organic whole milk is almost like whipping cream. (how this work given that it's a set milk-fat percentage, I do not know.)

Abraxian Absolution You make it sound pretty good. How good does it taste to the wallet?

MerchantGhost Not very good. 4-5 bucks for a half gallon of brand name stuff I think. Unless you have a bunch of cash to throw around it's probably best seen as a treat or high quality ingredient than a replacement for the stuff you buy regularly.

Abraxian Absolution eesh... Got nothing against organic food other than the usually high prices.

enjoy your osteoporosis

***** European Union seems to get along just fine.....

***** you are the misinformed one, we were better before the GMO crap came. Seed compagnies destroyed old varieties of plants that were adapted to the location/weather/... (because they were free) so they could have the monopole of the market (creating a depedence). Gmo's don't grow well, they NEED pesticide/herbicide/fongicide/fertilizer to grow and a lot off water compare to old ones. Do you really think we would have survive and prosper if we didn't have adapted plants in the past ? GMO's kill people (not talking health here) by putting small farmers in bankruptcy. Stop listening to the BS that defend seed ingeneering, they have billion of $ to defend and have influence. (edit) and by the way, are you a farmer to prove what you say ? I do.

John Doe he does not mention GMO in this video. conventional and GMO are different.

that's what's wrong with the video. there are 3 types of food and this video makes it seem like there is only 2. that's misleading. organic, conventional, and GMO. there is really no difference between conventional and organic when it comes to nutrition. But GMO foods are terrible for consumption. this video doesn't mention GMO. so technically he is right.

Brad Suarez There are little to no harmful pesticides in our food, in part, due to the very time limits to which you refer. As to the question of farmers who violate the law by violating time limits...well, with any luck, they'll get busted; we have mechanisms in our society for dealing with lawbreakers, but it's certainly true that they don't always get caught. And what makes you think organic farmers care about their kids and bills less than conventional farmers, or are any more ethical than conventional farmers? Maybe the "organic" food you buy is saturated with illegally-used synthetic pesticides.

foggylane22 Explain how would they get caught besides with "luck"? Farmer sells produce to retailer, retailer sells to customer. Unless someone gets seriously ill instantly after eating the produce would the law step in. It is well known that pesticides cause cancer.... how would you know which tomato/apple gave you cancer and then take that farmer to task? I agree that there is no full proof way of knowing if an organic farmer is using harmful pesticides etc... but you are more likely to get pesticide free food from an organic farm than a conventional farm for the following reasons. 1) Certified organic means the farm is liable for random checks by officials which may keep dishonest farmers in check. While the system needs work it may provide a deterrent. 2)Because organic produce sells for a higher price the farmer is more likely to use organic pest control rather than conventional. 3) It is much more likely that a conventional farmer would overdose/overuse/misuse pesticides than an organic farmer since they are already using these chemicals. Just last week I was speaking to a worker on a conventional farm and he gave me a list of 6 pesticides that they mix together to spray on peppers because there was a worm infestation.. this is done weekly.... peppers are picked daily. If you want to stay in a dream world and think you aren't ingesting some of that be my guest, I'm just horrified at what goes on on some conventional farms.

Brad Suarez Y'know, you could have just stopped at, "I don't know the particulars of those studies".

docpepperclassic Why? It may be that the studies are total bullshit is what I was trying to say! Especially when there are studies like these abound. journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=EF557C1FAE23E48E444E247D940DF1C7.journals?aid=9325471&fileId=S0007114514001366 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241395/ Matter of fact in the study he himself linked, it says.... "Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets" funny how he forgot to mentioned this when speaking about adults. As for this link... Mr Carroll if you want to post a link to back up your video please post one in which we could access without being tricked to give our email address then asked to pay to see the info. As for the other links... one is clearly from a bigot as she used numerous strawman arguments to prove her point. The other is the one from the Norman Bourlaug interview where he basically spoke about feeding the entire world population. What does this have to do with "Is Organic Food Better for Your Health"?? And the last is basically this video in written form. For someone that relies on "research" you surely have a lack of it in your links Mr. Carroll. Let me leave you guys with a little updated article myself where it mentions Mr. Carroll's 2012 study. Read it and come to your own conclusions. www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/11/organic-food-more-antioxidants-study

Brad Suarez Those time frames you mention are important because they make sure pesticides break down and disperse to levels that are below which humans are harmed.

Anti-Biotic resistant bacteria evolve when people don't use anti-biotics correctly (often by not completing their prescription). I guess it is possible for them to form my farmers misusing anti-biotics on farm animals though, do you have any sources we can look at?

I understand how they form with people. I may only be an undergrad, but I am majoring in biology and that has been covered repeatedly. I do not have any sources, that is why I said that I was curious. I don't know and would be interested in finding out. I know that antibiotics in farming are also used to promote growth even in the absence of infection (something that I don't understand exactly) is part of the reason I am curious. I know that there are probably studies on this subject, and I would be willing to wade through them once my course load is not so burdensome but again I am only an undergrad so I might not properly understand them.

SephieRothe I'm working on my doctor of pharmacy degree right now, and antibiotic resistance is obviously a huge topic in our industry. I'll try to give you a good, balanced view of the situation with agriculture and antibiotics. The answer to your concern is YES, the use of antibiotics in agriculture contributes to the development of drug-resistant bacteria, and yes, these resistant bacteria can (and do) infect humans. The USDA, FDA, and CDC are all very clear: there is a definitive, causal link between agricultural antibiotic use and the development of drug-resistant bacterial infections in humans. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are extremely dangerous and cause infections that are very often fatal. You are also correct that antibiotics are used to promote growth in livestock, rather than to treat infections. This is pretty standard practice in the US. In fact, about 40% of all antibiotics sold in the US are used for this purpose. It's well-proven that antibiotics are quite effective at promoting growth. Since you're a biology major, I'm sure you'll be interested to know the mechanism. Essentially the antibiotics change the gut flora in livestock in such a way that the animals produce more meat (output) for a given amount of feed (input). I think it's called conversion efficiency, or something similar to that. Since there are both benefits and drawbacks to using antibiotics in this way, it's a bit of a lose-lose situation. Reducing antibiotic use in agriculture would yield less meat per animal, and we need to maximize yields to feed people efficiently. But NOT reducing antibiotic use in agriculture will certainly lead to development of more and more antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and more people will die of infections from these organisms. I tend to fall on the side of reducing their use because antibiotic-resistance is terrifying. Even though I can also see the argument on the other side, but I think the agricultural industry needs to look at other means of promoting growth that don't involve the use of antibiotics. That's the short version of the issue. If you're interested in learning more, just type some iteration of "agriculture antibiotic use resistance" into Google Scholar. There are a number of good papers that will give you an overview of the problem. And don't sell yourself short as an undergrad. You can understand journal articles just as well as anyone.

I I was a physics undergrad for three years before switching to bio. I am still uncomfortable in the field. TI currently do not have a lot of time to read through articles but I wil after the semester is over. look through the articles. Thank you very much for your explanation.

SephieRothe Andre pretty much covered this completely but let me tell you something so that you may sleep in peace (or maybe is the other way around), the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria is unavoidable, it's all about evolution really, as long as there is an enviromental pressure (in this case antibiotics) you will eventualy have resistant bacteria, just like anything else, eliminating antibiotics isn't going to solve the problem but we have to find a way to prolong this event until we have something that's more suitable to use, such as phago therapy which uses virus to attack the bacteria or somehow enhance our immune system, but in the mean time, we are just going to have to wait until we have a better solution.

That's the chemistry definition. The agricultural definition is that it doesn't include synthetic chemicals.

Umm you mean marketing scam? :D

Most found studies are paid by Monsato so..... there you go!

yeah long term effects of eating pesticides... cancer

Typho0n ye please tell me how you plan to conduct that study? and how can you then show the link. If you understand how studies are conducted and how results can be tested for then you know that put a link to cancer is one of the most challenging links due to cancer being caused by so many environmental and physiological factors.

Why the Fk do you need to study it, its a toxic chemical that kills, what do you think is going to happen if you eat it!?!? cancer rates are on the rise, bees are dying! Go study your head!

Typho0n with all the news out about things causing cancer, I wouldn't be surprised that breathing air causes cancer, I believe he did a video about just this subject of everything causes cancer/everything prevents cancer.

Nathan Smith Breathing air filled with exhaust will eventually cause cancer. Not everything causes cancer, not everything cures cancer! We can minimise our risk by being smart!