Is Organic Food Better for Your Health?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лют 2014
- Many of my friends and family will only touch organic food. That's their right, and I don't try to fight with them. I sometimes get uncomfortable, though, when they make claims about organic food that just aren't supported by data and evidence. Moreover, I think arguing with anyone who is attempting to eat more fruits and vegetables that theirs are in some way "not good enough" is counter-productive. Watch the video and argue with me in the comments below.
Make sure you subscribe above so you don't miss any upcoming episodes!
Here are references for all the studies I talk about: theincidentaleconomist.com/wor...
John Green -- Executive Producer
Stan Muller -- Director, Producer
Aaron Carroll -- Writer
Mark Olsen - Graphics
/ aaronecarroll
/ crashcoursestan
/ realjohngreen
/ olsenvideo
Organic food is the biggest placebo industry in history.
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.
He makes a lot of good points here, and I like how clear he is about this video *not* addressing the other issues, such as the environment. I really like how he mentions that not everyone can afford to eat organic, and that not all of our food supply can be organic anyway.
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.
If you best rebuttal to this is "Paid shill", you've ran out of arguments.
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.
You should rename this the no significant difference channel
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.
I totally believe that there is no significant health difference between organic and traditionally grown food, however I would argue (as did Aaron Carroll near the end of this video) that the amounts of fertilizers and pesticides that we use harm the environment and we are in a serious evolutionary arms race against the pests and weeds right now which may hurt our long term growth opportunities with regards to food. As more weeds and bugs become resistant to our control methods we will need to pile on more, and more harmful, methods of controlling those things, and since mother nature has been in this game a significantly longer time than we have it's my guess that we are gonna lose this genetic arms race sooner or later.
Additionally it benefits our local economies to eat food grown closer to our homes and benefits your taste buds to eat in-season foods year round. The amount of money we spend on shipping food around the world is crazy-go-nuts, not to mention the greenhouse gas emissions required to do so. Eat locally and feel better about yourself.
Last point: we would have enough food to feed the world (even growing organically) if we didn't feed so much of our food to our food. Most corn, wheat, and oat crops are used to feed our meat producing animals. If instead we let our farm animals eat grass and trimmed down the mass production of meat we'd have tonnes of surplus to feed the world... I'm not saying go vegetarian (I love meat way way too much for that) but I am saying to be conscious of how *much* you eat and remember what it is costing to make that steak happen.
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.
This is surprising... It always seemed logical to me that food that is only food without all of the other stuff in it would be healthier for us. Weird. I will have to adjust to that new view. And do some more research.
Taste is my biggest factor, and I've found no taste difference between non- and organic foods, so I buy based on price. If there were proof that organic was better for my health, I might consider buying it. But as your video points out, the difference is negligible. That being said, when I have my own house and yard and can thus grow my own produce, I think I'll be much happier. Living in the city, the produce I can get from the store is not good at all -- organic or otherwise. Though when the winter's over, I'll make a point to hit more farmer's markets.
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.
Something I love about this series is the emphasis on research -- this is a lot of work to compare and contrast multiple studies. Thanks for this!
Thanks!
Agreed, data does not care about your feelings.
Great video!
That being said, every time you lean heavy on your table.. it shifts the camera a bit. Kinda distracting.
I've read about organic food for years. I have bought it sometimes as well. Two weeks ago I switched to all organic, after reading about how hormones are also put on our produce to grow bigger crops, as well as put in our animals to make them fatter and bigger. America is a fat nation, and so are areas we export our products to. And it's not all because of Twinkies.
Scientifically, we can only measure that for which we have instruments to measure. We cannot claim to have identified everything that goes to make up an apple. My son says that each trip to Ecuador, he drops 20 pounds in about six weeks. They don't use a lot of chemical in their food down there. He comes back slim. His friend does, too.
Fat cabbage, fat cows, fat pigs, fat grapes and fat bananas make fat people. You can say it doesn't, but it does. We have a nation of fat people, and not all of them are storing pie under their beds to eat at 2am. And many do not sit and watch TV all day, as much as many want to say they do. It is our food supply. Look at our pets. They are horribly fat, and they eat the same food they did 40 years ago, more or less. They are not sitting at computers all day, either. How did our pets get so fat? Because their food is full of growth hormones, that's why. And pesticides, which are hormone based, are the herbicides and antibiotics. Look at movies or news reels out of the 60's. Look at your yearbooks from that time. We were not fat. I was there. Something is making us fat, and common sense tells me it's the food, full of drugs we cannot pronounce. I am loving eating organic. Have to shop carefully though to find the best cost.
+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!
I realize that this is mostly concerned with Human health, but it is very well known that some pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers have a negative effect on our environment. I eat organic because I don't want to fund farms that are harming the wildlife, and eventually the humans that depend on that wildlife.
The findings on organic and conventional foods' effect on human health seems reasonable to me, but the known negative effects that pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers have on the environment still compels me to buy organic.
And as for organic food being less efficient at producing large quantities of food, I don't eat meat because plants are a lot more energy efficient per acre than meat.
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.
I'm confused by the study that neither foods were above maximum allowed safety limits. That's not really a comparison. If they were above wouldn't they be illegal? Shouldn't the question be which one is closer to the maximum?
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.
It's all in the soil.
I often wonder if this isn't less about "organic" food and more about foods raised naturally. I've seen pretty hard numbers about, for example, the chickens, beef, and eggs from Polyface Farms and their numbers are off the charts. That's not because they're organic (they're not even verified) it's because of the way they raise their meats. That, IMO, makes all the difference.
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.
No sample size? How does that even get published in a medical journal?!? (I assume this was in a medical journal.)
This video is another example of what I like about HT. You start by explaining how much more flavor locally grown food is.... which is typically organic. You then present the facts, which are that organic food has the same nutritional values as other foods. It's... "just the facts" but also wrapped up in a nice way for people to... digest.
"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!
Let the FLAMES begin! CONFIRMATION BIAS IN 3... 2... 1...
I'm really glad you made a video on this, these always make my day.
Also, organic food can be made with pesticides, at least in the States, they just can't use the synthetic sort.
I don't particularly care, but I believe in supporting small, local farms.
3:05 - 3:14
"[...] Organic food did have a significantly lower chance of being free of any pesticides at all [...]"
Are you sure they didn't have a significantly higher chance of being pesticide free?
I'd really like you to do a video on GMO's. I see a lot of ignorance on the issue of rDNA modified crops and it's very frustrating particularly because I'm not educated or fluent enough to educate these people.
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.
Great stuff, it is just impossible not to get along with a good scientist. Love how you introduce your own bias at the beginning and then show the lack of difference between the two foods. Thank you!
Its funny how people become so angry and mean on here :( If you want to eat organic then eat organic and if you don't want to eat organic then don't. Bottom line do your own research and educate yourself and then decide but don't put people down and begin to argue with them just because they dont agree with you. I choose to eat organic but I respect anyone who chooses not to. Anyone watching this video clearly cares about their food to some degree and I hope that whatever you decide to go with works for you and makes you happy and healthy :)
ME too, but this is healthcare triage's worst video.
I've been looking at the sources:
theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/healthcare-triage-organic-food/
and I agree with the points about nutrition and such. But I want to say the conclusions are oversimplified and focus on the agricultural aspects but not applied uses when making food. The conclusions also lean against organics but it should include more grey area.
Instead of saying "there just doesn't seem to be any evidence of real health benifits or protections from eating organic food" at 4:30 I would have preferred the conclusion of the study:
annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685
"Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."
It gives organics more credit.
This source:
blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
specifically says: "In my mind, the ideal future will merge conventional and organic methods, using GMOs and/or other new technologies to reduce pesticide use while increasing the bioavailability of soils, crop yield, nutritional quality and biodiversity in agricultural lands. New technology isn’t the enemy of organic farming; it should be its strongest ally."
Advocating for a mix of the good aspects of organic and conventional farming, which I agree with. There are a lot of flaws in both systems of agriculture and it should not be a matter of organic vs non.
I wish Dr.Aaron Carroll had included the ending of what he said in the CNN article:
www.cnn.com/2012/09/11/opinion/carroll-organic-food/
"Those are the people who might benefit from changes in diet. If we could focus on the added benefits of more vegetables and less meat period, and recognize that organic food might help convert some from one to the other, then we've won. Perhaps more backyard growing when possible, or farm shares when not, might do the trick. We should celebrate good food for what it is -- good tasting and good for you. We should spend less time arguing over minutiae that are irrelevant both in theory and in practice."
Being smarter and less wasteful about food, use of land, use of GMOs, pesticides etc is the way to move forward. All these are complicated issues. We as people need to waste less, drink more water (as opposed to soda), eat less meat (so we don't raise food to feed to livestock as much) and sugars, and have more balanced diets. This will mean we don't have to grow as much of specific crops like corn. Corn's used in high fructose corn syrup and most artifical products. The USA grew 84 million acres of it in 2011:
www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html
Agriculturally using land smarter with less focus on corn is more efficient. It takes less water to raise plants that like the climate. We should reduce pesticides and ban the more harmful ones but not assume organic pesticides are better. A lot of pesticides are banned in Europe but not the USA:
www.treehugger.com/green-food/7-foods-banned-in-europe-still-available-in-the-us.html
Which also means what the USA thinks is safe isn't considered safe by Europe.
The way I see it, the question isn't organics vs non-organics. Organic practices have a lot to offer. We should focus on being smarter, looking at what is harmful and moving ahead in the best possible and responsible way.
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.
A completely misleading title for this video...It should at least have "nutritional value" in it as that's what it was solely about. The only reason why people prefer organic food over conventional food is because of the pesticide use, which you completely disregarded because they're under the threshold amount. I actually just subscribed too...idk if that was a wise choice.
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/
the only reason why "organic food" exists, is because companies can raise the price to food, if this food is labeled "organic"
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;
Finally. Thank you for doing a video on this.
There are a couple of major, though unintentional, errors in the video:
@3:05 he says: "They looked at pesticide levels in the two types of food too. Organic food did have a significantly lower chance of being free of any pesticides at all, which isn’t surprising given that they use no pesticides and conventionally raised food does."
(1) I assume he meant the opposite of what he said in the first clause of the sentence; that is, he meant to say that organic food has a HIGHER chance of being free of any pesticides.
(2) The second of clause of the sentence is patently untrue, and perpetuates probably the most widely held false belief about organic farming: that it does not involve the use of pesticides. Not only do organic farmers use pesticides, they usually use more (do to less efficient products); and while it's true that the pesticides used by organic farmers generally are "natural" as opposed to synthetic, there are even certain synthetic pesticides that may be used in organic farming.
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.
Nicely done, sir! When you get around to that GMO video, I can share this along with it to hopefully counter all the misinformation. Or at least some of it.
Organic food is better....for ones relation with ones food - or at least, potentially. That's all. A social thing. We can't imagine the industry, the plants and factories and green houses, let alone the whole chemical science of the capitalistic aspect of our daily bread. It's difficult to relate and attend to such specialized disconnected and globally assembled products. But organic makes us more aware once more of who, where, when, what. Stuff actually around us. The product becomes more like food, like a sensuousness to relate through. Stronger taste is one of those relations.
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.
I think there should be a real debate in how we produce food, including the environmental impact, the health to the people growing the food and those eating it, and how well it treats the animals used. However, the label "Organic" isn't helping this debate. Not using scientifically developed fertilizers doesn't help anyone.
I don't care if GMO's or fertilizers were used as long as my food is tasty, safe, and produced through sustainable farming practices.
THANK YOU. I've been saying this for years, but no one else wants to read research papers.
seen a few comments mentioning chemicals.
to quote Hank Green:
"dear people who are concerned about the chemicals they are exposed to,
EVERYTHING IS CHEMICALS!"
But not everything is Biological. ;)
Nice video, it seems that a lot of people are still stuck in the naturalist fallacy.
However you did seem to describe the differences in pesticide contamination a bit too quickly, can you break it down a bit? You said that organic food was more like to be free of pesticides than conventional food, what pesticides were found in conventional food? Do these pesticides have any deleterious health effects upon people who consume conventional food?
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.
How am I just coming across this channel now? Videos like this are scratching me right where I itch.
Food sprayed with round up, meat injected with antibiotics vs organic? hmm... I'm just an arm chair warrior but it seems clear to me. I enjoy this video, 'Conventional' food is a great tool, I believe people are looking for more transparency than anything else...
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
I'll say it over and over. When in doubt, consult history as your guide. Since the advent of modern farming technology and modern medicine, we've doubled the human lifespan and live longer healthier lives because of it.
This video was so reassuring to me. I've been working very hard to make healthier choices, but every time I go online to research how to do so, I just get overwhelmed by the Internet's insistence that I should go organic. It also says that canned foods leech chemicals into the food, meats are full of hormones that will screw you up, eggs will wreck your heart, dairy grains will wreck your stomach, etc etc. I start to get afraid to eat anything. I cannot afford to eat organic produce. No way. After watching this, I feel okay with at least one food group I'm putting in my body. I wonder if you could give some insight into the other things I mentioned... and about if I should be wary of chemical hygiene and beauty products like acne products, shampoos, toothpastes, chemical sunscreens, etc? Anyway, thanks for laying it down so clearly. Even if you're wrong, you've made me feel less afraid to eat, and that's definitely a good thing.
I was gonna say I'm going to keep growing stuff in the garden, but he nailed it! Homegrown is delicious! If you wanna do something to help farmers and be healthy, go to a local farmer's market.
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.
Two things:
Something that I didn't find satisfactory about this is near the start he mentioned hormones in food as part of the non-organic category then he dropped that aspect. Girls are reaching puberty at much earlier ages.
www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/08/09/girls.starting.puberty.early/
I'd like to see specific evidence showing that is not influenced by hormones in food.
Another thing is there is a difference. In this video the difference was organic had less pesticides but non-organic did not pass the maximum allowed safety limits for toxins (3:20). That is a difference. I'd like to know what the maximum safety levels are based on. This
www.epa.gov/pesticides/food/viewtols.htm
says "These pesticide residue limits are known as tolerances. Tolerances are set to protect you from harmful levels of pesticides on your food. Inspectors from the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture monitor food in interstate commerce to ensure that these limits are not exceeded."
So a little pesticide is safe? That seems weird in it's self. What if people continue eating pesticides; will it build up? The summary is based on the "safe levels" being on the same level as no pesticides; provided that, it works. But that is very lenient criteria and seems to rely on "safe level" projections from the FDA. I don't trust this factor.
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.
I always assumed organic food was better for the environment, not necessarily myself...
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...
I am loving these videos! Thank you for the clarification regarding nutrition.
The taste of organic food is amazing, but the reality of agricultural practices and feeding 7 billion people is that we need advancement in technology and science to keep up with shrinking soil nutrient levels and the negative impact of monocultural farming.
It's times like these that we should be encouraging scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and farmers to be working together to make more efficient and nutritious crop yields.
"Organic food did have a significantly lower chance of being completely free of any pesticides" -- what?
My question is . Are produce organic foods better for the environment?
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.
I think we just need to improve out farming method. Not go back in time but go forward. Some methods we have used have been harmful and short sighted. If the production of food is tied to oil production then sooner or later we will have a issue. But that not to say we should stop using modern technology. We should use even more modern technology. Technology that solves the issues we have had in the past. I believe we can produce better tasting, more healthy, more environmental friendly food using new techniques. Think bright green and not dark green.
I know this is mentioned in the video, but I'd like to reiterate: It is clear there is no different in nutrients or health value between the two foods, but it is still a good idea to strive to buy more or organic and local or sustainably grown foods. It is better for the environment, which in the end is better for us.
***** 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.
Yeaaa I'm gonna need you to not stop making videos. Thanks.
I drink milk because its amazingly delicious...
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
I am curious about the correlation between use of antibiotics in farming/ranching and the antibiotic resistant bacteria.
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.
Thumbs up for this! You have proven me right! I told my family like a billion time that there is no significant differences between organic food and non-organic food but none of them believe me. Now I have prove!
So he said that the non-organic don't exceed the "safe" limits of pesticide content. But what is considered "safe"? Has it been studied if "safe" levels maybe have some long term health risks like higher chance of developing disease such as Alzheimers compared to eating organic?
Of course, eating *any* fruits and vegetables is no doubt going to be better.
The slogan of all science should be "Challenge your own Bias", because confirmation bias is probably the most dangerous enemy to the spread of truth and understanding in the world. Thanks for another fantastic video!
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.
Great video. I would like to see one covering GMOs. Thanks and keep up the great work.
I really wish you would have expanded more on whether or not organic production is necessarily better for the environment. Many organic farmers use "natural" biocides (e.g. copper based fungicides for fungal pathogens) that actually have a larger environmental impact than the non organic alternatives.
On a medical note, how do you feel about the antibiotics in conventionally raised meats and its relation to the rise of more virulent strains of pathogens? Is there a connection, and what studies are there? Do antibiotics in meat that I eat end up passing into me?
I challenge you to do some sort of Monsanto study!
I saw an old tv ad that debunked the claim that white bread was no different in nutrition from whole grain. They lie a lot. We don't know what data was thrown out.
It is true that ecological food may not have any impact what so ever on peoples lives, but it does for nature. For example non-specialised (excuse me if typed incorrectly, not native) pesticides kill a lot of the bugs that support the upper layers of the food chain. By eating ecological, you don't help yourself, you help nature.
By those means, if you _truly_ want to help nature, become a vegetarian. Vegetarians have a much smaller ecological foodprint and cause much less (unnecessary) animal harm.
Hiya, can I put in a request for a video on the relation between weight/BMI and health?
For me, it's not about nutrition. It's about the fact that I refuse to support awful companies like Mon Santo, and they make up such a huge portion of the market that I just can't trust any food I know isn't farmed naturally.
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.
Also, remember that not all organics are grown in local communities. It seems like all the major food corporations are jumping on the organic band-wagon, and I seriously question the ethics behind it.
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?
I believe you heart is in the right place and you are giving people what you believe are the facts. As someone who understands plant physiology, soil biology, and the corruption that is involved in many scientific studies, I hope to shed some light on the subject for you and your subscribers. Organic foods are healthier for two reasons. The first is it reduces pesticide intake into humans which in turn lessons the burden placed on their immune systems. Most if not all chemicals are endocrine disruptors which cause havoc with our hormone system. The second is that Chemical fertilizer and pesticides actually kill the microbiology in the soil. The microbiology eats the minerals and then poops them out making them available to the plants. If they have all been killed, which is usually the case after years and years of chemical fertilizer and pesticides, the crop consumes all the minerals in the soil leaving none for the next crop. For better understanding, Elaine Ingham went with her team to the rain forest in Brazil to test the soil. She thought they would find the richest soil in the world. What they found shocked them. They found the poorest soil in the world. How could this area produce such lush vegetation? They found it had the richest diversity of microbiology of anyplace in the world.
As far as the studies go, they can be easily manipulated by choosing what they are using as far as soil. It is extremely important to know who funded the study as many of these are designed to have a specific outcome and are therefor not reliable. If using farmland that has had chemical fertilizer and pesticides for many years, compared with organic farmland that has had the proper amendments, it is entirely impossible to for the organic farmland not to have far superior nutritional values of minerals. This lack of minerals is only part of the reason that roughly 60% of the population is on a prescription medication that they will be on for the rest of their life. Just 70 years ago before the advent of chemicals this figure was almost 0%.
There is an HUGE difference from chicken meat that you buy on the market and chicken grown without industrious techniques, oh and btw I have a farm and I don't use any sort of pesticides or chemicals and there is again a fricking huge difference in taste and in overall aspect of the food compared to market bought
+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
i think you missed what the actual argument about organic vs non organic food is really about, the debate isn't so much about nutrition but about preventing illness; so a better question to ask is; what are the pesticide levels on non organic foods compared to organic foods.
Any studies on the effects of repeated exposure to small (considered safe by the law) amounts of preservative or pesticides over a long period of time? For example sodium nitrate has considerable links to gastric cancer, but if we use small amount of it in our meats as preservative it's ok. I'm not convinced, I think in a case such as this the causation may just become too small to measure with our current methods. I know the whole organic thing can go a little too far, but if I know my food contains a substance that is possibly carcinogenic in higher doses I'll probably play it safe and just go with organic most of the time.
Also if you choose to look into the effects it has on the environment (it's pretty bad) I think that may out weight the pro's of non organic foods.
As always, great video. Keep up the good work!
I thought that "organic" means that it contains carbon.
That's the chemistry definition. The agricultural definition is that it doesn't include synthetic chemicals.
Umm you mean marketing scam? :D
I just prefer it because it tastes better.
What??!!?? I thought organic foods DID allow "organic" pesticides...
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)
I'm very critical of these "approved" levels, because they change from country to country and with time.
Thank you for not being like other people who let their ideology get in the way of the best scientific research. Thanks for telling us what the research actually says.
In the systematic review, is it normal to include studies in a systematic review that do not report sample size? A study like that is worthless, is it not, why include it in the systematic review?
Penn and Teller did a great episode on this of Bullshit.
Yes they did, I remember now! I miss them, they were so amazing,
Maybe I've missed it, but where do I find these studies?
I only eat organic for environmental reasons, but I'm upping this video because dude has a realistic, practical, science-based perspective.
Get informed, live according to your own beliefs, whatever they are, but whatever you do, get informed first. Stay educated.
I actually prefer to buy non organic seeds. Less work in growing. Less watering, bugs don't come flying all over them. I find they taste just as good as any other homegrown product.
It would be interesting to see the results for 30 year and 50 years studies
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!
All the non-organic studies showed they are within acceptable safety limits.
Okay, but who set those limits and have they measured long term use of ingestion of these chemicals? Monsanto heavily influences and advises the EPA and USDA unfortunately.
I would like to see a follow up video on how these limits got set and what studies were used to determine the acceptable safety limit.post
Love the show! I'd love to see a episode on the possible dangers of plastics and the chemicals they may or may not leech?
+Candice Brothers GMOs are COMPLETELY different than selective breeding. Calling them the same thing is like calling an athlete using steroids no different than a kid who's family is known for having athletic offsprings.
***** 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.
Is Organic Food Better for Your Health? AKA, My 7 minute explanation of why my wife is wrong.
Haha good one.
Also, I'm curious about who funded these studies?
Who funded the studies?
The focus on facts, research and science is great. Thank you for the good information in all of your videos!
You're welcome!
Samuel backus bro, this video is misleading. he does not mention GMO. 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.
Since when has organic ever been about your own immediate health? It's about environmental impact.
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.
Who fund the study?
Also just to add a quick tip, based on the NOF certification process the product must say 100% organic, if otherwise it doesn't than it does contain a process/ingredients that are not organic. So watch out for that labeling.
You are awesome as always. Keep spreading the truths. However, people should not confuse organic and local produce. Local produce is good because the time between produce being picked and consumed is much shorter than those sold in supermarkets. So while organic = regular, local produce >>>> organic and regular from suparmarkets.
How about meat from animals that were feed with hormons and antibiotics?
thats totally fine. I had a steak last night and I didn't die so its the same as organic beef
Ariana Grande So does injecting THE POT.
Le Name More antibiotic use will lead to increases in drug resistant bacteria, so his concern is legitimate.
Good to know.
Do you have any studies that examine the health benefits of organic foods as a placebo effect. Is there any difference to the benefits of them if your mind is set that they will/won't be any better for you? I've gotten into the habit recently of asking my friends if they'd eat certain types of food that are non-organic (including up the extreme end of "lab grown meat"), it's interesting to see their different reactions.
I was thinking something similar.... as in people that believe organic is more healthy and pay more for organic produce are willing to go to extremes to be more healthy... and would be more likely to participate in more healthy activities (exercise more, eat more veggies and less meat, etc.) which could affect results.
I eat mostly organic food. Not because I think it is better but because my parents leave In the countryside and they have a garden and a coop. My father likes to farm so he always has fruit, vegetables, eggs and poultry. If I had always leaved in the city, or if my parents had moved to bigger city I probably would eat less organic. Buying organic, specially for us that leave in a big city is a waste of money and effort. But everyone that had eaten organic knows that it tastes better!
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.
Dude, you just said that Organic foods use no pesticides. Not True. Organic foods use no SYNTHETIC pesticides, but they DO use pesticides, which in some cases are as toxic or more toxic than their synthetic alternatives.
0:48 have you even watched the video?!
I'm interested in your discourse on milk consumption. Your comment got me looking on Google, but that was a lot of information on both sides being thrown about. Calcium absorption? Blood pH? Sugar consumption? There's a lot out there, and it's hard to pick the empirically-tested science from the common sense-type arguments in these arguments.
I liked this video because I always wondered when I was little why my mom bought organic foods at the store and if it was really benefitting our family in any way. It is interesting to know that there are no real differences in any of the categories mentioned. I do however like the idea of eating something that is more clean and untampered with and it makes more sense to eat organic food because it tastes better and is over all less chemicals in our bodies. Whether the studies show it or not, I am sure our body handles less chemical better than it does more. This could also be an instance where the effects of nonorganic food have just not come out and shown their real problems yet. Just like back in the day they didn’t know that smoking was bad for them, but now we know and the amount of smokers has gone down. Now addressing cost, if you’re someone who can’t afford to buy organic food then by all means nonorganic is a perfectly fine option because obviously studies show there are no major differences.
I liked the parts where you were talking about studies. The whole Norman Borlaug bit about "we need fossil fuels and mechanized agriculture" was a bit of a red herring in the discussion about health. It caused you to come down against organic food without the corresponding research on crop yields or the general efficacy of other farming techniques like organic, no till, etc.
He didn't say "we need fossil fuels and mechanized agriculture." He said that organic methods don't produce enough, which is true. Without modern farming techniques, there wouldn't be enough food for a large chunk of the planet. If you think starvation is a problem now, think of how bad it would be when 2-3 billion people can't get enough food.
Way to make a straw man argument...
I agree we need to look at alternative techniques in farming. That's not to say there is no place for the standard modern agriculture methods but we surely can be more efficient with less waste and pollutants.
I don't think we need to rely as heavily on non-organic food and methods to feed people as it seems at first glance. It's not a matter of needing non-organic food as much as needing to be smarter about food.
Eating meat is very inefficient because the energy transfer looses so much. If people ate the recommended portions of each category of food, vegetables, grains, meat etc, we wouldn't need to grow as much food to feed to livestock.
Corn, usually made into high fructose corn syrup, is in most food products and very unhealthy. This requires a lot of corn to be grown (84 million acres in 2011). If Americans could do without such sweet foods that number could be reduced significantly.
A huge amount of food is wasted.
Americans should eat smaller portions.
People should drink more water.
There and more are a lot of things that are healthier and smarter people could be doing instead of growing more food.
Also food distribution is very uneven around the world; people are starving in places but wasting food in other places.
I'm not saying that all food has to be organic but these are problems we, as people, should be fixing before acting like we must grow large quantities of food in order to feed everyone.
I favor organic farming for a few reasons, but in this forum I only wish to point out that this issue is not treated scientifically in the video unlike the health aspect which was well treated. I don't fancy a sprawling discussion without a common starting point in the video. I'd rather have the green revolution debate elsewhere. I understand Borlaug and his ilk, and I disagree with them.
mitchumsport
Because this video is about nutrition, not farming practices. Doesn't the title make that clear?
He does make it clear with the title and some disclaimers, but he also undermines that clarity by quoting and qualifying an expert who isn't discussing nutrition. See my original comment.
Can you post in the descriptions links to the studies for all your videos? And for ones not online, can you post the citations? Because really, there is no real way to know if you are telling the truth if we do not know the studies you are referring to. Thanks.
He's got the references there.
FeedinAtroll Haha didn't see that, thanks
Interesting. But I would also like to know; have there been any longitudinal studies on whether eating non-organic food puts you at a higher risk of developing certain diseases (e.g. heart disease, cancer, dementia) later in life? I would presume not, but I still like to cover all bases.
What value is the "maximum allowed safety limit"(for pesticides in foods), and what determines this threshold?
Personally, I find the most compelling reason for going organic to be the fact that conventional agriculture consumes utterly ridiculous quantities of fossil fuels, which are largely non-renewable and generally have no real alternatives that can be used in conventional agriculture. To give more specifics, there's the obvious culprits of tractors used to cultivate soil, apply fertilizers and pesticides, and harvest crops,as well as the trucks and ships used to transport food across the nation and the world. However, there's also less obvious ones, like how nitrogen fertilizer is produced in a process that consumes methane (also known as natural gas) and, while I'm not 100% sure on this one, I'd assume many of the chemicals used as pesticides use some form of petrochemical distillate as a feedstock. Without radically changing the process we use to grow food on a large-scale, there's just no getting around the need for fossil fuels.
Also, the argument that we need to innovate and increase the production of food to 'feed the world' is bogus. We already produce way more food then is necessary to feed the entire world's population, but the problem is that this food is not distributed equally. There's billions of people who are just too poor to feed themselves on even conventionally grown diets, with the reasons for this being a huge topic in and of itself that, frankly, I don't feel knowledgeable enough to really give justice. I do, however, know enough to know that the problem is NOT production, but rather distribution and inequality.