Is Organic Food Better for Your Health?

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: theincidentalec...
John Green -- Executive Producer
Stan Muller -- Director, Producer
Aaron Carroll -- Writer
Mark Olsen - Graphics
/ aaronecarroll
/ crashcoursestan
/ realjohngreen
/ olsenvideo

[@yellowbird5411]

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.

[@joebamba1342]

+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.

[@yellowbird5411]

+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!

[@warrenlauzon5315]

Organic food is the biggest placebo industry in history.

[@malikathueler2529]

Just after homeopathy...

[@warrenlauzon5315]

@Bartender Plus Name something that is NOT a chemical.

[@saynotohookups]

@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.

[@ems7623]

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

[@ems7623]

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

[@ColterDewitt]

If you best rebuttal to this is "Paid shill", you've ran out of arguments.

[@michael0156]

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

[@studefishernikal]

+Colter DeWitt *your

[@KilgoreTroutAsf]

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.

[@TheSocialIrony]

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.

[@nonchalantd]

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.

[@TheSocialIrony]

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.

[@RustyDust101]

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.

[@soylentgreenb]

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)

[@soylentgreenb]

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.

[@RobertJones]

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.

[@KarolaTea]

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.

[@tabula_rosa]

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

[@yungo1rst]

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.

[@Cucumber-ej1pm]

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

[@yungo1rst]

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.

[@raxacoon]

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.

[@johnnyappleseed4568]

You should rename this the no significant difference channel

[@moonanddarkness]

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.

[@arjenbij]

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

[@hmrobert7016]

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

[@holisticpoet]

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%.

[@Haxorpenguin]

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?

[@TracyCampbell]

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.

[@groundedinfirstprinciples383]

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

[@saynotohookups]

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

[@TheKokojoe]

It's all in the soil.

[@untitledCommenter]

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.

[@qwertyuiopaaaaaaa7]

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.

[@CplHenderson]

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.

[@joecoolioness6399]

@@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.

[@charliepiston3169]

There are huge costs to conventional agriculture that are usually ignored: poisoned food, poisoned environment, loss of species. The ruling class has failed, so vote against them by boycotting all non-organically raised foods, and support local organic farmers by buying their products. Additionally, if you have the space, grow a vegetable garden and raise a few chickens.

[@rolfthewolf42]

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?

[@healthcaretriage]

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

[@healthcaretriage]

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?

[@89taklung]

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

[@bethankful]

+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".

[@netsquall]

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

[@drvanon]

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.

[@douglasolsen2357]

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!

[@healthcaretriage]

Thanks!

[@joecoolioness6399]

Agreed, data does not care about your feelings.

[@JoeAuerbach]

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.

[@harshbarj]

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

[@joecoolioness6399]

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.

[@RTWrename]

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

[@ComicalHealing]

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

[@RTWrename]

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

[@RTWrename]

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

[@allhailskippy]

Great video! That being said, every time you lean heavy on your table.. it shifts the camera a bit. Kinda distracting.

[@ToddCopeland]

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.

[@InorganicVegan]

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

[@RossGarcia]

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

[@johnhutchinson5015]

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.

[@RossGarcia]

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.

[@cpunching]

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!

[@frankyap9818]

Remake this episode 5 years later plz

[@RizenLink]

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.

[@SystemFreaKk13]

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.

[@DiscoFur]

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

[@SystemFreaKk13]

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

[@SystemFreaKk13]

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

[@jmanfiji]

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.

[@foggylane22]

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.

[@groundedinfirstprinciples383]

Well constructed thought sir.

[@joecoolioness6399]

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.

[@LucasCzarnecki-PoliPsych]

No sample size? How does that even get published in a medical journal?!? (I assume this was in a medical journal.)

[@demonac]

Let the FLAMES begin! CONFIRMATION BIAS IN 3... 2... 1...

[@lindasek1206]

I don't particularly care, but I believe in supporting small, local farms.

[@JustOneAsbesto]

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.

[@JoeyHumble]

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?

[@Skylarkien]

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 :)

[@davidallen4071]

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

[@oO_ox_O]

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.

[@0gracefulgirl0]

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.

[@lexensterenberg]

***** 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.

[@LZKS]

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.

[@0gracefulgirl0]

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.

[@0gracefulgirl0]

***** 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

[@0gracefulgirl0]

***** 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.

[@adda229]

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 :)

[@dsdales]

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

[@wov3n]

Yeaaa I'm gonna need you to not stop making videos. Thanks.

[@JoshSaysStuff]

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.

[@tabula_rosa]

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

[@healthcaretriage]

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

[@InorganicVegan]

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

[@JoshSaysStuff]

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.

[@geordonworley5618]

***** 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.

[@nonchalantd]

Quoting from the same metaanalysis he is referring to: "The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, −37% to −23%]), but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small." "[T]he risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%])." "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." Link in the description.

[@tiesthijsthejs]

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.

[@draszi]

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

[@Food4Function]

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?

[@tiesthijsthejs]

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?

[@tiesthijsthejs]

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.

[@Pinklewilly]

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.

[@BrianHutzellMusic]

4:42 Native Iowan Norman Borlaug is a huge deal here in Des Moines. The building that used to house the city’s main library, where I spent many hours as a kid, now houses the Word Food Prize, which Borlaug created in 1986 to recognize “the achievements of individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world.”

[@Joshawanao]

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...

[@joecoolioness6399]

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

[@thesoulpropriety1]

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.

[@RizenLink]

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.

[@snapplecapfact]

girls are also getting better nutrition these days

[@RizenLink]

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'.

[@SparrowFae]

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.

[@RizenLink]

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.

[@KemaTheAtheist]

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.

[@RaeanneRoy_TinySamurai]

As someone with leaky gut, I think these findings apply to healthy people. I know when I was extremely sick last May, my body would only tolerate organic fruits and vegetables, and grass-fed beef or oat-fed pork. This may simply be because of the leaky gut and the food sensitivities that go along with it as I have issues with dairy protein & sugar, eggs, and yeast (molds, citric acid, etc). Lactose or citric acid is sprayed on a lot of vegetables. My two cents is that if you are healthy, organic or not probably doesn't matter, but if your body is trying to heal, perhaps it does matter.

[@DracoAvian]

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.

[@DarDarBinks1986]

That's not entirely accurate.

[@DarDarBinks1986]

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.

[@MarkSanso]

AirCooledMan2006 this is a mighty fine point.

[@groundedinfirstprinciples383]

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

[@saynotohookups]

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

[@BrotherAlpha]

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.

[@JosephBeckW0W]

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.

[@ninobrownninobrown]

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.

[@deksroning125]

This guy fails on several points: 1. We had the technological ability to grow food in fully automated vertical farms since 1974 which would incorporate use of hydroponics, aquaponics and aeroponics without pesticides, chemicals or GMO... plus, the structures in question would be fully closed systems that do NOT rely on external weather conditions. Furthermore, the water usage in these systems would be 75% lower compared to regular agriculture... and the said structures can be designed from the ground up produce EXCESS water and energy (through use of atmospheric water generators, wind turbines, photovoltaics as well as geothermal and piezoelectric), and the food would grow up to 5 times faster (if we implement omega gardens style - which forces the plants to fight against gravity and as such produce more vitamins/nutrients and results in stronger plants overall. 2. I will definitely agree we are on shaky grounds when discussing nutritional benefits because large use of pesticides and chemicals present in conventional farming might also cause diminished absorption of vitamins and minerals (the amount of both might be the same as in organics, but the likelihood they will be equally absorbed is my concern here). 3. 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. Agriculture is outdated. Fully automated vertical farms (which function locally) are an answer. Return all of the currently used land for agriculture back to nature after switching over to fully automated vertical farms. Our footprint on earth would reduce by orders of magnitude from this alone.

[@datechnod00d]

How do GMOs "ravage the land" again?

[@deksroning125]

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).

[@deksroning125]

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).

[@MrBottlecapBill]

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.

[@ElijahLynn]

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

[@gmosphere]

My question is . Are produce organic foods better for the environment?

[@aceofthegame]

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

[@michael0156]

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

[@st1tch87]

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.

[@aceofthegame]

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.

[@michael0156]

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.

[@karlvega8187]

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.

[@ShadowRevya9]

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.

[@nowisgood4me]

I'm very critical of these "approved" levels, because they change from country to country and with time.

[@Lacocacolaman]

You should do a debate with Mike Adams. "Whether the level surpassed maximum allowed safety limits" LOL. I'd like to know more about this. I don't think people are complaining about the nutrition. People do not like poison on their food. To say "oh, the government says it's safe to eat this much pesticides" does not cut it. How much do we get in a single apple? what if i eat 2 servings? What happens when we spend our entire lives eating small dosages of pesticides? the contamination that it is causing, Killing bees and so on. The same people tell us fluoride is safe to drink in water! I hope your wife doesn't listen to you. Also to each his own! if you want to eat non organic go for it. But don't make it comparable to Organic and trick people into thinking it's better. I don't think anyone who is pro organics is against technology (red herring) Organic people love hydroponics. there's other cool things out there but no need to get into them all. Also Obama won the noble peace prize. How many people has he killed? The only reason why organics is more expensive at the moment is because of the demand. It just started booming back! when the industry is all set to pump out organics it'll naturally drive prices down. Like anything that first comes out it's expensive, but as more people buy, and demand increases, companies will find ways to drop cost and make more!

[@gskibum]

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

[@Lacocacolaman]

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

[@Veketshian]

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.

[@avtawf]

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.

[@oftheFence]

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!!!

[@djow314]

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

[@shirak8]

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

[@NhatLinhNguyen82]

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.

[@djow314]

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

[@CiszHelion]

As many commenters have pointed out, yes, many critics of non-organic agriculture agree, it is not about the nutrients and never was. I agree with that too. Since we are about to live in a world without oil and coal, fertilizer production becomes a huge problem, because it requires massive ammounts of energy. Also, the quality reduction of other indicators, like ground density, shine a bad light on non-organic agriculture. It is possible (some say even inevitable) that the (tons of food)/(area of land) is optimal for oganical agriculture, because energy production and leaving wasteland behind both requires massive ammounts of land that are not taken into account yet. Once we actually start to replace fossile fuels, this calculation will look very different.

[@Cythil]

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.

[@madman3891]

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.

[@neeeiiil]

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!"

[@groundedinfirstprinciples383]

But not everything is Biological. ;)

[@iluminandoscholar]

My mother was a tomato picker, when she was younger. They would spray the plants with chemicals, not giving a damn about the people picking there fruits! She now has liver cancer, and it is directly attributed to that job. Along with her, many fruit pickers got cancer and many of them died from it. She was lucky enough to leave that job earlier from job opportunities in the city. However this was an immoral and dangerous act, i will never buy conventional grown fruits and vegetables, i don't care if the methods have changed and fruit pickers aren't getting sick. The inception of this growth method carriers lives with it and i do not honor that.

[@TheBookShell25]

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.

[@EmbraceTheThunder]

THANK YOU. I've been saying this for years, but no one else wants to read research papers.

[@jonmark7264]

As a local/just food advocate I totally agree with you. The debate shouldn't be between organic and conventional. The real debate is between industrial and non-industrial food. Unfortunately USDA organic was made for large industrial organic farms and is (as you said) basically the same thing. However, there is something to be said about growing your food instead of eating highly processed cheeseburgers. I know I am arguing for more things then one and socioeconomic difficulties that make these foods scarce for urban poor is a greater issue than nutrition comparisons between factory vs. garden green onions.

[@Teacherinasubie]

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.

[@BitPuffin]

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.

[@bradsuarez2683]

I'm a conventional farmer but I try my best to buy organic produce as much as possible. I know first hand all the pesticides/fungicides/herbicides that goes into producing the most amount of food at the fastest possible time. I don't know the particulars of those studies but let me ask you this question.... IF THERE ARE NO HARMFUL PESTICIDES IN THE FOOD WE EAT WHY THEN ARE THERE TIME REQUIREMENTS AS TO WHEN PESTICIDES SHOULD BE APPLIED. EG) 3 MONTHS BEFORE HARVEST?? And what happens when farmers ignore these time requirements. Imagine Farmer Joe has a 50 000 dollar field, two children to feed and put through school a mortgage to pay and a loan for his farm... and pests are threatening to wipe out his crop do you think he has time to consider these time recommendations?

[@foggylane22]

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.

[@bradsuarez2683]

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.

[@docpepperclassic]

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

[@bradsuarez2683]

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

[@theskv21]

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.

[@IIIhittmanIII]

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.

[@TechLaboratories]

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!

[@joecoolioness6399]

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.

[@knobjockey6882]

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.

[@at0micpn0y]

Non-organic is better for your health. Why? 1. Bigger fruits and vegetables to fill you up, thus skipping junk food 2. Cheap prices mean you don't have to work twice as hard to buy the over-inflated trendy organic produce. 3. Money saved from not buying organic can buy you a gym membership. I just bought tomatoes for 96 cents per 2 lbs and I live in Miami! Compare that to organics.

[@DarDarBinks1986]

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.

[@at0micpn0y]

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.

[@benjamincarney9875]

AirCooledMan2006 Ms. Frizzle, is that you?

[@DarDarBinks1986]

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

[@TurboDally]

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

[@christopherhalim2801]

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!

[@Nurl-esh]

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!

[@moonanddarkness]

Or rather, fresh food tastes better? :D

[@Nurl-esh]

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

[@moonanddarkness]

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.

[@ericvilas]

The one argument I found that I just can't seem to counter with evidence is that it could cause effects in the very far-off future, like 30-50 years or so. How do you argue against that? Are there any studies?

[@GreedyCapybara7]

Do you have a source?

[@ericvilas]

No, no, I'm saying that I'm finding it hard to argue against this, not that this is my argument.

[@GreedyCapybara7]

***** Why would you want to argue against a problem that doesn't exist? I'm not following your logic.

[@ericvilas]

I'm saying that people bring it up, like "there haven't been studies that prove that it's not a problem, so I'm being careful" and I don't know what to answer to that.

[@GreedyCapybara7]

***** "What makes you think it's a problem?" Done, simple, one sentence. You can't prove a negative, science doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

[@lovelyperson9]

Finally. Thank you for doing a video on this.

[@armorhide406]

Here are my two bits, 1) it's less efficient, creating a shortage and increasing prices, as well as requiring more shipping, ergo isn't all that better for the environment. (Yes, I know that seems like slippery slope, but it's true) and 2) the big companies own most of the organic food market anyways. Also, Whole Foods seriously fucks over customers.

[@KateeAngel]

the only reason why "organic food" exists, is because companies can raise the price to food, if this food is labeled "organic"

[@2DRonaldo]

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.

[@KateeAngel]

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

[@2DRonaldo]

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.

[@nosajsamaniego4512]

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

[@nowisgood4me]

To be honest one of the main reasons I prefer to buy organic food is, that it usually comes with no or much less packing (in my country) which means waste reduction and I can usually portion it myself (so I don't have to buy six of something if I only need 1. Plus they can sell "missshaped" foods and not throw them out. And I'm much less likely to buy too much because YES it is expensive. So eventhough it might not be healthier, I still prefer it. Thanks for the video!

[@ManuelGutierrez-zb5xm]

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!

[@joycejean-baptiste4355]

The one thing I have wondered about organic farms is this, if one organic farm is near other nonorganic farms, can the runoff from the other farms get into the soil of the organic farm. I'm thinking yes it can to some extent, especially when it rains. I do like the lesser of the two evils however, and would choose the less toxic product. Less toxin from pesticides, herbicides and fungicides is more beneficial for me. Nothing is really pure any more. So sometimes I eat a variety in moderation and cover all the bases I hope. Thanks for the information.

[@mitchumsport]

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.

[@KemaTheAtheist]

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...

[@RizenLink]

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.

[@mitchumsport]

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.

[@KemaTheAtheist]

mitchumsport Because this video is about nutrition, not farming practices. Doesn't the title make that clear?

[@mitchumsport]

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.

[@suracs]

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.

[@JohnDoe-pt4mc]

+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.

[@JohnDoe-pt4mc]

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

[@VieuxBat]

***** 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.

[@ninobrownninobrown]

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

[@ninobrownninobrown]

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.

[@themotherbrassica]

Interesting. I agree about the freshness factor! I think that the biggest variable in nutrition levels in food (all other things, such as cultivars, being equal) is how fresh it is. At least in my area, the farmers' markets are the place to get the freshest food (which just happens to be organic). I don't think many people realize just how old a lot of supermarket produce is, and therefore don't even consider its freshness when they think of its flavor or nutrition. The food from the farmers' markets tastes better than the supermarket food, and due to an overall lack of understanding of the food distribution system it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some people might misattribute the difference to it being organic rather than to it being fresh.

[@SephieRothe]

I am curious about the correlation between use of antibiotics in farming/ranching and the antibiotic resistant bacteria.

[@impguardwarhamer]

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?

[@SephieRothe]

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.

[@AndreArizpe2012]

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.

[@SephieRothe]

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.

[@moonanddarkness]

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.

[@andrebasden]

"Organic food did have a significantly lower chance of being completely free of any pesticides" -- what?

[@patwams48]

I drink milk because its amazingly delicious...

[@Implicacean]

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.)

[@MerchantGhost]

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

[@Implicacean]

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.

[@MerchantGhost]

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

[@Shaun07288]

enjoy your osteoporosis

[@mangosmothies]

I hope that you might be able to do a video on GM produce sometime in the near future. I know it's a can of worms that most people avoid opening, and from experience I have seen it usually ends with heated arguments of uninformed parties who have preconceived bias opinions that stop them from looking at it logically. I am not an expert, but I would like to know what kind of evidence for or against you have. I live in Canada and I know that out regulations are different from the states in regards to how our food is grown, though I don't believe those same standards apply to imported produce. I am interested in the possible long term effects that continual consumption of GM produce has, particularly in regard to allergies. My aunt lived in Canada until she was married which was when she moved to the states. She has lived there probably around 20 years now and has developed severe food allergies she did not have before, including corn, seafood and I believe soy and the list goes on. She feel that this may be linked to GM corn and such, and the difference in Canadian and American regulations. Just wondering what kind of information you have that I may not of heard of, thanks for the videos.

[@RuthEDay]

I always assumed organic food was better for the environment, not necessarily myself...

[@danycashking]

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

[@RuthEDay]

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.

[@elliottmcollins]

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

[@BenjaminGessel]

This whole video is BS...

[@luciacarey4370]

I would like to hear what the studies that he mentioned in the beginning are, who they were done by, how long they were conducted, etc. Those factors play a large role in how the study comes out and what we as consumers hear. According to his research, organic food is not any better for you than regularly grown food. I am able to relate to this because my mother is a big supporter of organic food. Our family spends approximately double the amount of money per month on groceries than the average family on all organic food. These costs are not even to local farmers, but to large companies that say they are organic. She does buy a share of a farm each summer to get fresh vegetables, which does provide money back into the local economy. Overall, we spend much more money on food than we probably need to based upon the evidence shown in this video. I do agree that the locally grown foods taste much better than the mass produced foods that are available for purchase in a grocery store.

[@snowpunk116]

The focus on facts, research and science is great. Thank you for the good information in all of your videos!

[@healthcaretriage]

You're welcome!

[@ninobrownninobrown]

Samuel backus bro, this video is misleading. he does not mention GMO. conventional and gmo are different.

[@ninobrownninobrown]

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.

[@Merlmabase]

Dr. Carroll, I want to say first that I'm really thrilled with the work you're doing on Healthcare Triage. And I understand that your focus is on public misconceptions, and drawing conclusions based on real evidence. I'm with you so far. But I think anyone with a bit of sense and a little information realizes that the most compelling case for organic farming is ecological, and to a lesser extent social and economic. You mentioned that in passing, but it seems to me that failing to provide some numbers on that issue was a little disingenuous. I hate misleading advertising as much as anyone. That goes for organic food purveyors implying that their products are inherently healthier, but also for large agro-industrial companies arguing that their products are a hedge against global starvation. The idea that the world can't be fed on organic agriculture alone is absurd on it's face - that was the only style of agriculture we used for the vast majority of our sedentary existence. It's only implausible if we refuse to include food waste and population expansion in the discussion, which we really need to.

[@LZKS]

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.

[@Christine41110]

I have always thought that the concern with inorganic foods was that the traces of chemicals left on the skins of our fruits and vegetables caused toxicity in the body and effected the body's ability to properly regulate hormones and absorb nutrients rather than the fact that the chemicals depleted the foods nutritional value. Is this true or just a whole different topic?

[@FluffRecordings]

"No proven benefit" 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. Which is fine, but the above statement is misleading. "no proven health benefit" would have been better. I'm surprisingly disappointed. I expected to like but disagree, but I found this whole video misleading, almost with an agenda. While this video raises some good points, and yes organics are over hyped, but it ignores the big picture. Even saying "no proven health benefit" might be a stretch as there has been no evidence presented that on an ecosystem scale, organic agriculture provides no health benefit (this is admitted). And it certainly might, given that smaller systems tends to fail less spectacularly. The environmental risks scales are less, so logically, overall less people will have negative health effects--is that not a health benefit? For instance, ecoli in organic produced food is less risky in that the food it is produced on a smaller scale and is, in theory, easier to control for risks and problems. 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. Such arguments are not without their many protractors and to present only one side (and so complete reductive/simplified) within your 'fact only' program make me see this as having an agenda. Which disappoints me. There's a huge amount of ethical, political, geopolitical, ecological problems with such arguments Stick to the facts, Healthcare Triage.

[@cabrita309]

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.

[@FluffRecordings]

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.

[@groundedinfirstprinciples383]

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

[@hauptma2]

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?

[@HeliosMaximus]

I just prefer it because it tastes better.

[@jag519]

Can you do an episode on microwaves at some point? My friends are convinced that microwaving food (specifically vegies) destroys the nutrients in the food. Now, obviously, the way that you cook your foods changes the nutrient values, so it's possible that this is true, but I don't know. Why would vibrating the water in an object to heat it up kill the nutrients?

[@Overonator]

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?

[@edoist16]

An issue I have with organic foods is the following: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordeaux_mixture The copper (II) sulphate "is approved for organic use", and hence is used extensively where other "non-organic" fungicides are actually way less harmful to both people and the environment.

[@xxjman1217xx]

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.

[@JonesMacGrath]

He's got the references there.

[@xxjman1217xx]

FeedinAtroll Haha didn't see that, thanks

[@ojoronen]

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.

[@robbinezinga2839]

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.

[@malikathueler2529]

0:48 have you even watched the video?!

[@Wouldntyou98]

The only thing I've found is that buying from farmer's markets (what I consider organic food) is that flavors of things are much better, particularly with vegetables and fruits. Tomatoes are the one I've found this to be most accurate with. The big thing about these markets are that the windows in which you can buy the produce narrows, because they aren't shipped and have almost no shelf-life.