It's always an indication of how desperate and baseless a troll like yourselves arguments are when you eventually come across the "ZOMG MAGICIANS IZ LIARRRZZZES!!111" line. yeah, they're paid to trick people's eyes. the difference is,m they're HONEST and UP FRONT about it. Far from claiming actual powers, most magicians (P&T included) tend to make the debunking of psychics and such parts of their act.
Which makes them a good deal more honest than your lying, spamming ass.
@NiceGuyCody P&T use trickery in some of these BS videos. For example in the "Eat this" episode they used a bait and switch to fool the audience into believing a Greepeace statement was false. The statement was that no government agency requires human testing of GMO's as part of their reglations. P&T used a statement that said GMO's are tested(but doesn't mention human tests) then basically called the Greenpeace guy a liar, even though P&T were lying by tricking the audience!
Keep rationalizing your paying more money for less and lower quality food by pretending you're saving the environment and protecting yourself from all sorts of nonexistent health hazards, dipshit.
organic is a bunch of bullshit my grandma grew up on a farm in the 30s and 40s and she told me she grew organic but everything these days is either sprayed to grow faster and fuller or has something done to it, theres no escaping it nowdays whereas back then you could buy stuff straight off the farm.
I don't believe the organic claims, anyway. I look at the "organic" produce and it looks immaculate, which means they were grown commercially with some kind of pesticide. It's simple logic. The pesticides are used to keep the bugs off, if they weren't necessary, farmers wouldn't use them. You want real natural produce? Grow something in your garden, and enjoy the small size and picking out the bugs and worms. Bon Appetit!
@bloodsling If you believe Penn & Teller, then you haven`t done your research. For example the episode claims that coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue. Since studies suggest coffee REDUCES cancer risk about 30% on average, then Penn & Teller are claiming pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%. If you believe Penn & Teller, then try to finding scientific evidence to back up that insane claim, and you will realize that you got tricked by magicians!
@myndy86 They did not claim that coffee caused cancer. The cancer risk comes from the manufacturing process of coffee (adding preservatives and shit). The comparison is to show that newer pesticides are generally very safe.
@DeadFishFactory The claim is coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue. The studies suggesting coffee reduces cancer risk for most cancers by an average of about 30%, used coffee the way it is typically used. The comparison of coffee and pesticide residue made in this video is false, so it does not " show that newer pesticides are generally very safe". For the comparison to be true, pesticide residue would have to reduce cancer risk 30,000%! It is insane to believe that!
@myndy86 I don't know if you're trying to pretend to not know what they're saying or not. Their argument is basically the newer pesticides carry almost no cancer risk. They're saying that coffee has a cancer risk, but that's due to the manufacturing process of coffee, and not the coffee itself (for example, heavy metals are common contaminants).
@DeadFishFactory I understand perfectly well what they are saying. They are saying coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue, this is basic math. Let's say pesticide residue increases cancer risk 1%, that means they are trying to say coffee increases cancer risk 1000%. Do you understand? So, because studies suggest coffee actually reduces cancer risk about 30% on average, that means they are trying to say pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%!
@myndy86 Keep in mind there are different types of cancers. Coffee could reduce one type of cancer, but it can cause a likelihood of another cancer. You have to compare the same cancer for both pesticide and coffee.
@DeadFishFactory Karolinska Intstituet in Stockholm, Sweden study, Uterine Cancer risk reduced 10% reuters"dot"com/article/2009/10/30/us-coffee-cancer-idUSTRE59T4KP20091030
Wayne State University study, Skin Cancer risk reduced 12%
@DeadFishFactory Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri study, Liver Cancer risk reduced 41% sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/08/070801112146.htm
University of Utah study, Head and Neck Cancer risk reduced 39%
@DeadFishFactory International Journal of Cancer (Volume 121, page 1312), Colon Cancer reduced 32% johnshopkinshealthalerts"dot"com/alerts/colon_cancer/JohnsHopkinsColonCancerHealthAlert_3051-1.html
Harvard School of Public Health study, Prostate Cancer reduced 20%
The studies suggest coffee reduces the risk of most cancers by an average of about 30% as I said. Where is the evidence that pesticide residue reduces cancer at all?
If that was me interviewed I would say the non organic was better. Then they would try to shock me and say "this ones non organic" then I would be like "okay? That's exactly what I buy and prefer."
the tomatoes at my grocery store are gassed to make them red, and they are green and flavorless. Its impossible to have ripe tomatoes at the grocery store because they would rott in the shipping process from Mexico etc. I know the difference, this show is bullshit
@help4343 Because non-organic fruit uses fertilizers to give it tons of nutrition. Similar to how taking vitamins makes a human healthier. Non-organic fruit grows-up healthier (and tastier)
@electrictroy2010 University of Kassel "Studies under controlled experimental conditions show a clear advantage for staple food grown under biological/ecological farming conditions as compared to those from conventional farming methods."" lower undesirable (e.g. nitrates) and higher desirable (e.g. vit. C, trace elements) components are present." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3054635
@electrictroy2010 Orv Heti "Organic crops contain a significantly higher amount of certain antioxidants (vitamin C, polyphenols and flavonoids) and minerals, as well as have higher dry matter content than conventional ones.""there is a lower level of pesticide residues, nitrate and some heavy metal contaminations in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755
@electrictroy2010 Universitetet i Oslo, "A review of existing literature reveals that organic foods compared to conventionally produced foods seem to have a higher content of antioxidants in plant products and a higher content of fat-soluble vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids in animal products. Animal studies (among them, on rabbits and chickens) show higher fertility and less morbidity in animals fed organically." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15195159
@electrictroy2010 French government food safety agency AFSSA "1/organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals(Fe, Mg);and contain more anti-oxidant micronutrients such as phenols and salicylic acid, 2/organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids""4/ 94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues, 5/ organic vegetables contain far less nitrates" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019&Itemid=129
@help4343 Penn and Teller are magicians, they get paid to trick you. This taste test was clearly edited, and these are probably just paid actors. For unedited results of a taste test not done by magicians, type "Organic or Conventional? (2 of 2)" in the youtube search.
Penn and Teller are honest magicians and make it clear that they are doing tricks and don't have real magic powers. When they perform on T.V. shows they usually have at least one trick where they show the audience how it is done. What evidence do you have that they cheated on the taste test? They did only show those who failed the test, but they also gave the percentages of the whole test.
@help4343 What evidence do you have that they didn't cheat on the test? I believe the stats were something like only 5% chose the organic food. No peer reviewed study that I am aware of had stats like that! This episode is filled with false claims, like coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue. Since most studies suggest coffee reduces risk of most cancers by about 30% on average, that means they claim pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%! That's BS!
@help4343 My mistake, it's been awhile since I watched the video. I was confusing the 9/10 "guessed really wrong" stat with 9/10 chose inorganic. Still 71% and 80% chose inorganic stats are not consistent with the "more people prefer organic" result of most studies. My argument is that the huge majority of anti-organic statements made in this video are just insane and not backed by peer reviewed studies, like their false coffee claim, so most likely their taste test is not accurate either.
@myndy86 Maybe the studies that show that people prefer organic over organic were not done blindly? The banana girl clearly shows that people view organic food in a more positive light.
@DeadFishFactory You said, "Maybe the studies that show that people prefer organic over organic were not done blindly?" The studies I am referring to, were done blindly. You are correct that people view organic food in a more positive light, however that would not change the result of a study where a person(or animal) chooses between two foods(one organic and one not) not knowing which is organic.
@myndy86 I don't know why you are suggesting animals preferring one food over another has to do with anything seeing as how animals would eat either one regardless.
I can't find a study where a blind test was conducted. All of the "studies" I come across where people prefer organic food were from surveys. Care to link me to one?
@DeadFishFactory "I don't know why you are suggesting animals preferring one food over another has to do with anything seeing as how animals would eat either one regardless." People will usually eat either one regardless as well, it's not as if people are spitting out the food if it's not organic or is organic. They are eating it either way, it is just a matter of which one they prefer.
I have never seen a survey "study" that people prefer organic. Give me a minute to find some studies.
@myndy86 True. I'd eat organic or non-organic, but that's not the issue to me. The issue is the cost. Organic brand food is usually way more expensive. If I can't tell the difference, nor do I care for the difference, then I'll buy the cheaper one.
@DeadFishFactory "when given a choice, animals prefer organic to conventionally produced fodder." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15195159
"Organic crops also contain statistically more mineral compounds and usually have better sensory and long-term storage qualities." onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsfa.3000/abstract
"compared with the conventional and integrated systems, the organic system produced sweeter and less tart apples" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11309616
@DeadFishFactory Youtube doesn't allow links in the comments. To get them to work you have to add h t t p : / / w w w . without the spaces in front of the links and in some cases you have to change the "dot" to a .
I'm just going to personal message you the links to make it easy.
@myndy86 This is why it helps to delve into the technical science article and not so much science news media (which may be helpful to informing the public about science, but they tend to exaggerate). The actual studies used questionnaires and surveys. There surveys showed a correlation between people who drink coffee and reduced cancer risk, but it's unacceptable to say that drinking coffee is what caused it.
@myndy86 I never said that coffee couldn't reduce cancer, I was saying that Penn was making a point that pesticides are extremely safe now, and the coffee statistic was just a comparison note (and again, the cancer Penn mentions from coffee could be from preservatives or heavy metal contamination).
@DeadFishFactory I only gave you a small fraction of the studies that have been done, there have been numerous studies and meta-analyses done over the past 20 years, so it really isn't "jumping the gun". The video is making a false statement and so it can not be making a "point" about anything. The coffee statistic was a false comparison that leads people to believe that pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%, which is insane! It calls into question every anti-organic claim they made.
@myndy86 Surveys are nice and all, but it's still jumping the gun to claim it. I guarantee you that 20 years of studies WILL show you that increased consumption of ice cream will increase your chances of drowning. The correlation is nice, but you can't assume that eating ice cream will cause you to drown (in this particular case, eating ice cream correlates with drowning because ice cream consumption increase during summer, where more people swim as well).
@DeadFishFactory You are not understanding the studies. They are giving an exact % while looking at all factors, you can not find a study that "WILL show you that increased consumption of ice cream will increase your chances of drowning" that can give a % of risk because that is just a correlation, the coffee factor shows causation which is why they can determine a specific % factor. You could not find a study that ice cream increases drowning that is as false a claim as P&T coffee comparison!
@myndy86 No, causation studies would be if you take like 5000 people who don't drink coffee and make them drink coffee, and track them over their whole life to see how much of them develop cancer (with controls). And even that you wouldn't be able to say with certainty that coffee was what reduced their cancer risk.
@DeadFishFactory That has been done in animal studies and actually giving them carcinogens and one group coffee, with a control, etc.. You may not understand Hill's Criteria for causation. The reality is a claim like coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue is really just insane and even your argument confirms this by stating "everything has a cancer risk" while this video claims pesticide residue has no cancer risk.
@myndy86 Yes, everything has a cancer risk. However, you're saying that coffee has no cancer risk because it reduces cancer risk. I'm saying that both coffee and pesticide have cancer risk, and Penn is saying that pesticides nowadays are so safe that their cancer risk is less than that of coffee's.
@DeadFishFactory There isn't a difference when the huge majority of studies suggest coffee reduces cancer risk for most cancers about 30% on average, then their claim of pesticide residue having "LESS of a cancer risk" would mean pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%. They make numerous false claims, like saying there is no evidence whatsoever that any organic food has higher nutrient levels than conventional, but MOST studies suggest organic generally does have more nutrients.
@myndy86 You're implying correlation means causation again. Even then, you're committing some kind of math error.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that coffee does reduce all types of cancer by 30%. If pesticide residue is 1000x less likely to cause cancer than coffee, we have to look at the cancer risk of coffee, not its reducing effects. For this purpose, if we assume the cancer risk from coffee is 0%, then 1000% of 0% is still 0%.
@DeadFishFactory Except coffee really has a -30% cancer risk! The studies I gave you actually suggest cancer risk is even lower when the person drinks more coffee per day, 30% is actually the average of the lowest amount of coffee drank per day. You are also not doing the math correctly, its not 1000% of cancer risk for coffee, it is 1000x more cancer risk than pesticide residue, so if we assume pesticide residue increaes cancer risk 1%, then they claim coffee has 1000% cancer risk.
@myndy86 But you just agreed with me that everything has a cancer risk. The point Penn is trying to make is that pesticides are extremely safe compared to 50 years ago (when they did pose a cancer risk).
Something that is meant to be ingested does not have a 1% cancer risk. Cancer risk for these things are like 1E-10% or something really small. Otherwise, you'd have an epidemic of cancers and the FDA or EPA would ban it from consumption. And 1000x of 0% is still 0%.
@DeadFishFactory No, I didn't agree with you, I just said that was your argument. Even if the risk of cancer for pesticide residue actually increased .01%, the claim is still insane based on the overwhelming evidence that coffee reduces the risk of most cancers. Your math is fuzzy, 1000x -30% is -30,000%, this is basic math. If the risk is a negative number you don't automatically round that number to 0%.
@myndy86 You're using the math incorrectly and you're assuming that drinking coffee would reduce cancer risk by 30% (this number was derived from surveys, remember that). Again, I said the cancer risk from the coffee could come from harmful preservatives or heavy metal contamination. This is a cancer risk unrelated to whether or not coffee could reduce cancer risk. Penn is pointing out that based on that, pesticides are extremely safe today.
@DeadFishFactory I would also like to point out that many of the synthetic pesticides used 50 years ago are still used today so again by your logic pesticides do pose a cancer risk!
@myndy86 Yes, the pesticides that are used 50 years ago are being used on organic fruits and vegetables. Using up-to-date pesticides are too mainstream or something.
@DeadFishFactory There are no synthetic pesticides used in organic farming! Conventional farming still uses some of the pesticides,etc. they used 50 years ago! My math is good, you are falsely turning coffee reduces cancer risk 30%, to coffee has 0% cancer risk. You are using fuzzy math to try to justify P&T's false statement. There is evidence in surveys and animal studies coffee redues cancer risk, but where is the evidence pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 1000 times more than coffee?
@myndy86 I'm not proving their statement one way or another because I don't know where they got their information or what cancer they're talking about (and P&T say they don't put out false information). I'm telling you that the way you're using math is wrong and that the point Penn was making is that pesticides used today are extremely safe.
@DeadFishFactory My math is good, but your math is just made up. If something has a negative risk you don't just call that 0%. You said "if we assume the cancer risk from coffee is 0%, then 1000% of 0% is still 0%." Your argument here is that P&T are being dishonest! They could have said coffee has the same risk as pesticide residue, but by your argument they used 1000x because anything times 0 is 0, which is dishonest contrary to your statement "Penn and Teller are honest magicians".
@myndy86 Your whole cancer risk analysis is wonky simply because you assume that cancer risk is a black-and-white plus-or-minus issue. This might be a crazy concept, but your body doesn't work that way. You can't just slap "-30% cancer risk" on to something and then use that as a basis for your math.
@DeadFishFactory Not everyone is going to have a 30% cancer risk reduction by drinking coffee, this is the average of the lowest amount of coffee consumed suggested in the studies. Your same argument is used against you, "Your whole cancer risk analysis is wonky simply because you assume that cancer risk is a black-and-white plus-or-minus issue.", so by your argument them saying coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue is "wonky"!
@myndy86 I didn't say that. Penn did, and I'm taking that as, "wow, pesticides must be really safe today." You're taking it as, "LOOL, 30000% reduction in cancer risk!"
@DeadFishFactory You said "I don't know where they got their information or what cancer they're talking about" Even if P&T were talking about some specific cancer, the statement was "cancer risk" and not some specific cancer risk, so the statement is still false. You really have done nothing to support their statement other than say "P&T say they don't put out false information" and try say coffee reduces cancer risk 30%, means coffee has 0% cancer risk, which is just bad math!
@myndy86 I don't need to support their statement, because unlike you, I was seeing their point. The coffee was merely a comparison for how safe pesticides have become.
@DeadFishFactory You said "coffee was merely a comparison for how safe pesticides have become." If they said coffee probably has about similar cancer risk as pesticide residue, then your argument might make sense, but they specifically said 1000 times more! By giving a specific amount and not saying probably it is no longer a hypothetical comparison. The huge majority of studies looking at human consumption, animal studies and biochemical analysis suggest coffee generally reduces cancer risk!
@DeadFishFactory Maybe P&T aren't purposely lying, maybe they just got false info from the people in the video, like Alex Avery(wikipedia states"New York Times pointed out that Avery`s non-profit employer has received funding from Monsanto Company") and Ronald Bailey(wikipedia states"he earned a B.A. in philosophy and economics", no mention of a degree in food and nutrition, etc.). P&T didn't look at the biased and unqualified anti-organic "scientists" claims, they just took their word for it.
@myndy86 Penn and Teller also employ their own research time that fact-checks everything the people they interview claim. The bias part comes in here because the incorrect statements the people that is on their side make, they don't show it.
If they show a claim that they didn't call bullshit on, then chances are it is accurate.
@DeadFishFactory You give P&T way too much credit. P&T made the false claim secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer when the overwhelming evidence suggested it did. When they were confronted with the evidence they later admitted that they were probably wrong. Had they did the fact checking you claim they do, then they would have found the overwhelming evidence that existed that secondhand smoke most likely does cause cancer. I know P&T make false statements, there are many in this video alone.
@myndy86 The data at the time suggested that secondhand smoke didn't cause harm. But you can see that they did admit that they were wrong, so it's not like they were doing it out of any agenda. They said that new data suggested that second hand smoke could cause harm, so it was sort of an errata.
However, that wasn't their main point, anyway. Much like this. Their main point isn't that coffee reduces or doesn't reduce cancer, it's that the organic food claim that pesticides are harmful iswrong
@DeadFishFactory The majority of studies at the time(as I already mentioned) DID suggest secondhand smoke caused cancer. Their excuse was that a new meta analysis was done(which included many of the studies they overlooked) that suggested they were wrong. Another example is when Penn admitted he never watched the tower 7 video. They make these BS videos without doing much research and they even admit that! Penn said "we don’t do all our own research. We are hosts who do the best job we can."
@DeadFishFactory You said "anything they claim that sounds too good to be true I would look it up myself. " So, doesn' t the claim that coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue, sound too good to be true? As I have been asking you, look it up for yourself, try to find evidence to back that claim.
@DeadFishFactory You said "Their main point isn't that coffee reduces or doesn't reduce cancer, it's that the organic food claim that pesticides are harmful iswrong", pesticides generally ARE harmful and that isn't coming from organic food people it is acknowledged by the scientific community in thousands of studies and the medical community with thousands of cases of illnesses caused by pesticides. If you really believe pesticides aren't harmful then you got tricked by magicians!
@myndy86 There's no such thing as pesticide-free farming. They have to use pesticide, and the newer ones are safe. Yes, they can still pose a risk, but it's negligible unless you intend on drinking the pesticides straight.
Again, some farms use old pesticides (organic farms for example), but a lot of them use the new ones. You're claiming that because some farms use old pesticides, that means all of farming is using old pesticides.
@DeadFishFactory There is a such thing as pesticide free farming. 52% of organic farms use no pesticides whatsoever and those that do use significantly less than conventional farms and organic uses more biological pest control like crop rotation, crop cover, predatory insects etc. than conventional. USDA states "organic produce carries significantly fewer pesticide residues than conventional produce." nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/faq/BuyOrganicFoodsC.shtml
@DeadFishFactory "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods""Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown samples. Comparison of specific residues on specific crops found that residue concentrations in organic samples were consistently lower than in the other two categories, across all three data sets." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028642
@DeadFishFactory Studies suggest organic farmining itself reduces insect infestations compared to conventional "abundance of cereal aphids was five times lower in organic fields, while predator abundances were three times higher and predator-prey ratios twenty times higher in organic fields"" Insecticide treatment in conventional fields had only a short-term effect on aphid densities while later in the season aphid abundances were even higher" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3097189/
@NiceGuyCody I post PEER REVIEWED STUDIES, you just believe magicians, LMAO! "abundance of cereal aphids was five times lower in organic fields, while predator abundances were three times higher and predator-prey ratios twenty times higher in organic fields""Insecticide treatment in conventional fields had only a short-term effect on aphid densities while later in the season aphid abundances were even higher"ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3097189/
@DeadFishFactory French government food safety agency(AFSSA) states "94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019&Itemid=129 Organic food generally doesn't have pesticide residue because as I stated, most organic farmers use no pesticides, those that do use significantly less than conventional and organic farming itself can reduce harmful insects. Don't just believe P&T, look it up!
@NiceGuyCody "In conclusion, we were able to demonstrate that an organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to organophosphorus pesticides that are commonly used in agricultural production. We also concluded that these children were most likely exposed to these organophosphorus pesticides exclusively through their diet." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1367841/
"intake of organic foods leads to some advantages, such as the ingestion of a higher content of phenolic compounds and some vitamins, such as vitamin C, and a lower content of nitrates and pesticides" onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02436.x/abstract
@NiceGuyCody It is actually at the point that virtually everyone in agriculture accepts that organic has fewer pesticide residues. "94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019&Itemid=129
.""there is a lower level of pesticide residues, nitrate and some heavy metal contaminations in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755
@NiceGuyCody 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and those that do generally use significantly less than conventional farms and organic uses more biological pest control like crop rotation, crop cover, predatory insects etc. than conventional. USDA states "organic produce carries significantly fewer pesticide residues than conventional produce." nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/faq/BuyOrganicFoodsC.shtml
@NiceGuyCody "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods""Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown""Comparison of specific residues on specific crops found that residue concentrations in organic samples were consistently lower than in the other two categories, across all three data sets." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028642
@NiceGuyCody "Pesticide residues were only detected in farms using conventional agriculture practices while no pesticides were detected in grapes from farms using organic or integrated pest management." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20213057
"To go organic does not necessarily mean that organic products are totally free of chemical pesticides but they have a lower pesticide residue."ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14736111
@NiceGuyCody "conventional (C) and organic (O)""Contamination among the two types of potatoes varied from a season to another and contamination of C potatoes was nearly 2 times that of O potatoes either by pesticides or heavy metals." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19138717
@NiceGuyCody "Fresh potatoes (228 samples) from 34 farmers' markets in Alberta were analyzed for 29 pesticides. Residues of three different pesticides were found in the samples tested""No pesticide residues were detected in 23 potato samples obtained from certified organic farmers." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21909624
@tomas6262 If you look at this study, "organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to organophosphorus pesticides.""children were most likely exposed to these organophosphorus pesticides exclusively through their diet." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1367841/
Then this, "These findings support the hypothesis that organophosphate exposure, at levels common among US children, may contribute to ADHD prevalence."
@tomas6262 EPA website states "Pesticides may harm a developing child by blocking the absorption of important food nutrients necessary for normal healthy growth. Another way pesticides may cause harm is if a child's excretory system is not fully developed, the body may not fully remove pesticides. Also, there are "critical periods" in human development when exposure to a toxin can permanently alter the way an individual's biological system operates." epa.gov/opp00001/food/pest.htm
@tomas6262 Let's look at the most commonly used synthetic herbicide, glyphosate, for example and what studies suggest in regards to adverse health affects to developing animals, children, fetuses, etc., "glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use""We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals."
@tomas6262 "Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684
"Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development""Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated regarding their toxic or hormonal impact." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17486286
"Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105
@tomas6262 “The pooled analysis of NHL and HCL was based on 515 cases and 1141 controls. Increased risks in univariate analysis were found for subjects exposed to herbicides (OR 1.75, CI 95% 1.26-2.42)”“Among herbicides, significant associations were found for glyphosate (OR 3.04, CI 95% 1.08-8.52)” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12148884
@tomas6262 "Reported use of several individual pesticides was associated with increased NHL incidence, including organophosphate insecticides coumaphos, diazinon, and fonofos, insecticides chlordane, dieldrin, and copper acetoarsenite, and herbicides atrazine, glyphosate, and sodium chlorate. A subanalysis of these "potentially carcinogenic" pesticides suggested a positive trend of risk with exposure to increasing numbers."ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1740618/
@tomas6262 “We report a population based case-control study of exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).”“Exposure to glyphosate gave OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.10-3.71 and with>10 years latency period OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.16-4.40.”In conclusion our study confirmed an association between exposure to phenoxyacetic acids and NHL and the association with glyphosate was considerably strengthened.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18623080
@tomas6262 “These results suggest that commercial formulation of glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor in vivo, causing disturbances in the reproductive development of rats when the exposure was performed during the puberty period.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20012598
“The levels of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of glyphosate occurring in mammalian cells suggested that its mechanism of action is not limited to plant cells.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16276681
@tomas6262 “effects of the Roundup""exposure to the herbicide resulted in alterations in the structure of the testis and epididymal region as well as in the serum levels of testosterone and estradiol, with changes in the expression of androgen receptors restricted to the testis. The harmful effects were more conspicuous in the proximal efferent ductules and epididymal ducts, suggesting higher sensitivity of these segments among the male genital organs.”ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17166697
@tomas6262 “AMPA is the major environmental breakdown product of glyphosate.””the level of DNA damage in exposed cells at 2.5-7.5mM showed a significant increase compared with the control group. In human lymphocytes we found statistically significant clastogenic effect AMPA at 1.8mM compared with the control group. In vivo, the micronucleus test rendered significant statistical increases at 200-400mg/kg. AMPA was genotoxic in the three performed tests.”ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19013644
@tomas6262 “glyphosate and its formulation on mature rat fresh testicular cells from 1 to 10000ppm, thus from the range in some human urine and in environment to agricultural levels.""Leydig cells are damaged. Within 24-48h this formulation is also toxic on the other cells, mainly by necrosis""At lower non toxic concentrations of Roundup and glyphosate (1ppm), the main endocrine disruption is a testosterone decrease by 35%.”ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22200534
@tomas6262 "adverse reproductive effects on male offspring rats: a decrease in sperm number per epididymis tail and in daily sperm production during adulthood, an increase in the percentage of abnormal sperms and a dose-related decrease in the serum testosterone level at puberty, and signs of individual spermatid degeneration""in utero and lactational exposure to glyphosate-Roundup may induce significant adverse effects on the reproductive system” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17634926
@tomas6262 “These results suggest that maternal exposure to glyphosate disturbed the masculinization process and promoted behavioral changes and histological and endocrine problems in reproductive parameters. These changes associated with the hypersecretion of androgens increased gonadal activity and sperm production.”ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22120950
@tomas6262 “we have studied the effects of the herbicide glyphosate on several enzymes of pregnant rats.”“The results suggest that maternal exposure to agrochemicals during pregnancy induces a variety of functional abnormalities in the specific activity of the enzymes in the studied organs of the pregnant rats and their fetuses.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11237511
@tomas6262 “Results showed a 50%, mortality rate for dams treated with 1000 mg/kg glyphosate. Skeletal alterations were observed in 15.4, 33.1, 42.0 and 57.3% of fetuses from the control, 500, 750 and 1000 mg/kg glyphosate groups, respectively. We may conclude that glyphosate-Roundup is toxic to the dams and induces developmental retardation of the fetal skeleton.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12765238
@tomas6262 The dozens of studies I just replied to you with, are just a small sample of studies, there are many more suggesting adverse health affects of glyphosate, and that is just one synthetic pesticide, there are many more. Synthetic pesticides were not designed to be safe for human consumption, thousands of people commit suicide every year by ingesting synthetic pesticides. Synthetic pesticides from diet are especially not safe for consumption by children and pregnant women.
@myndy86 Youre point is semi-valid.the devil is in the details.There are numerous chemicals that are deadly at one dose,but perfectly safe at a lower dose.Aspartame Msg,for example are only harmful at levels hundreds if not thousands of times higher than average consumption
@tomas6262 It's dose dependant, but affects occur at levels found in kids, etc."glyphosate and its formulation on mature rat fresh testicular cells from 1 to 10000ppm, thus from the range in some human urine and in environment to agricultural levels.", "glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use", "organophosphate exposure, at levels common among US children, may contribute to ADHD prevalence.", etc.
@MeruFM Do you mean ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105591 Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells.? Youtube doesn't allow links in the comments, try typing the quotes(without quotation marks) from the studies in a search engine like Google, etc. and the Pubmed links should come up in the search.
@NiceGuyCody Nobody pays me to comment. How much does pesticide companies, etc. pay you to spam your anti-science propaganda all over these videos? Considering you claim dozens of studies published in peer reviewed journals by independent scientists, the UN, etc. "wasn't true, reliable or peer reviewed", it is obvious who is "anti-science ".
@NiceGuyCody You obviously have no idea what peer reviewed means. Stop running your mouth about things you clearly don't understand. Anyone can read the studies I posted and look at the journals they were published in and see for themselves that they are peer reviewed and that you are just making false statements because you have no other arguments.
@DeadFishFactory You said "they can still pose a risk, but it's negligible unless you intend on drinking the pesticides", Thousands of cases of illnesses every year are attributed to pesticide exposure, not caused by drinking them. You said "You're claiming that because some farms use old pesticides, that means all of farming" I never said ALL conventional farms, but the majority of conventional farms use Roundup(used 40 years ago)! You said ALL organic farms use pesticides, which is false!
@DeadFishFactory Let's look at a pesticide that most conventional farms use Roundup(glyphosate), "Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination. Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated regarding their toxic or hormonal impact." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17486286 "Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105591
@DeadFishFactory More studies, "glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use""We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15929894 "Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684
@nasheacarlos The difference is that there is a safer alternative to conventional food. If you know of a safer alternative to electronic devices, that serve the same purpose in a similar time frame, etc., then let me know and I will gladly use them.
@myndy86 Well organic food isn't produced in a similar time frame as "conventional" food, it's more expensive and less convenient since it's harder to grow. Not saying organic foods aren't beneficial; but, there are a lot more dangerous things you could bitch about. Go try and save the world by getting people to use electric cars and renewable energy which would have a much greater impact then switching people to organic food...
@nasheacarlos Organic doesn't generally grow slower! Especially compared to an email going 1000 miles to mailing a letter by horseback, which is no electronic devices used. Harder to grow? It takes more knowledge to grow organic but that doesn't really mean harder.
@myndy86 If it's not harder to grow, more conveniant, and it grows in the same speed why doesn't everyone just grow organically? Yes it has it's advantages no ones disagreeing with that; but, their are other simpler things that can be done that will have greater benefits! Tell people to take shorter showers and water their lawns in the morning or at night. For greenhouse gases have ELECTRIC CARS!
@nasheacarlos I wouldn't say it is more convenient except perhaps in developing countries, but a main reason people don't grow organic is because the conversion process is expensive and you can not sell the food as organic for several years. So, it is basically the certification process that deters farmers. For "Tell people to take shorter showers.""For greenhouse gases have ELECTRIC CARS!" I'm not arguing against that, and I do that. However, I generally don't like lawns.
@nasheacarlos "With a few exceptions, studies point to environmental advantages for organic farming practices with respect to a) maintaining or building soil quality, b) lessening ground and surface water contamination, c) reducing greenhouse gas emissions, d) encouraging biodiversity, e) conserving water and energy resources, and, f) recycling waste." nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/faq/BuyOrganicFoodsD.shtml
@nasheacarlos "Organic farming leads to many improvements to the natural environment, including increased water retention in soils, improvements in the water table (with more drinking water in the dry season), reduced soil erosion combined with improved organic matter in soil leading to better carbon sequestration, and increased agro-biodiversity."unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
@DeadFishFactory You said, "Their main point isn't that coffee reduces or doesn't reduce cancer, it's that the organic food claim that pesticides are harmful iswrong" But you admitted, "The point Penn is trying to make is that pesticides are extremely safe compared to 50 years ago (when they did pose a cancer risk). As I stated before many pesticides used 50 years ago are still used today, so you just admitted that Penn's "point" is false and many pesticides used today, "pose a cancer risk"!
@DeadFishFactory Your(and P&T) argument makes no sense, when you consider that many pesticides/herbicides/fungicides that were used 40 or 50 years ago are still used today. Take Roundup(glyphosate) for example. Roundup has been used for the past 40 years and is still one of the most common herbicides used in agriculture. So, you(and P&T) trying to say pesticides, etc. are safer now than 40 or 50 years ago is BS when many of the same pesticides are still being used today!
@DeadFishFactory I'm not "making it sound like every farm uses the same pesticides from 50 years ago", however, the huge majority of conventional farms DO use Roundup(used 40 years ago). Even synthetic pesticides from the 1950's like 4-chloro-2-methyl phenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) are still being used by conventional farmers today.
@myndy86 However, everything has a cancer risk. Things like the manufacturing process can cause heavy metal contamination, or the preservatives used are known to cause cancer, can increase the risk of a type of cancer (while the product itself might reduce other cancers). Pesticides would probably fall under that same type of cancer as heavy metals or preservatives.
@myndy86 I shouldn't say "reduced cancer risk". The surveys showed that the group that answered "yes" to drinking coffee daily had less people with a specific type of cancer than the group that answered "no." It's a nice correlation, but it's jumping the gun to say that coffee could reduce cancer risk.
@sypoth Can you reference a peer reviewed study suggesting organic could only feed 1 billion people? The huge majority of peer reviewed studies/UN reports suggest organic can feed the current world population using the amount of current agricultural land, while increasing average yields 80% in poor countries. The huge majority of studies also suggest organic is more nutritious and conventional farming is more likely to cause an outbreak through pesticide resistant insects.
@BeaveHolio A survey found 17% of organic farms tested for GM contamination and 11% of those tested had GM contamination. That means even Non-GM seeds can be and often are GM contaminated making it possible for a biotech company to sue the Non-GM seed user for patent infringement. So, no they can`t just use Non-GM seeds.
They aren't the only ones to do a study like this, and all the studies come back with the same results. Organic Farming is unsustainable, if every possible surface were to be dedicated to organic farms it would only feed 1 billion people. Organic farming is worse for the environment because it allows proliferation of pest species such as locusts that move on to destroy surrounding ecosystems, modern pesticides are harmless unlike 60 years ago, nutrients are the same, and the taste is no diff.
this is complete bs, organic is better not because of taste, but because of no use of pesticides aswell as a higher nutritianal value dip shits. this clip is from a tv show that has been create by the media and govermantal convergence to get people to start buying more nonorganic fruits and veggies so they can start making the money back they have been losing for years, i disrespect the fact that someone posted this for all to see its not bad enough its on tv for sheeple too view
When did, (what are you guys, magicians?) P&T become activists? Like the Amusing Randi, it accomplishes nothing to try to debunk or make people look foolish, unless they hurt themselves in the process. Then its a money making tv show, but this is truly a waste of time.
@Pookie7985 If you believe Penn & Teller, then you haven`t done your research. For example the episode claims that coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue. Since studies suggest coffee REDUCES cancer risk about 30% on average, then Penn & Teller are claiming pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%. If you believe Penn & Teller, then try to finding scientific evidence to back up that insane claim, and you will realize that you got tricked by magicians!
@Pookie7985 52% of organic farmers use NO pesticides whatsoever and those that do generally use significantly less than conventional farmers. If organic pesticides like Bt, are more harmful to the environment as you claim, then since many GM crops use Bt, GM crops must be MORE harmful than organic because 100% of GM Bt crops are supposed to express Bt, where as only 48% of organic farmers use pesticides and they don`t use them 100% of the time like GM Bt crops do.
@aprilreeves1 this episode actually covers the topic of organics being "pesticide free". They state that organic farms still use pesticides otherwise their farms wouldn't have enough yeilds to meet demand and the pesticides that they use are from older methods that have been proven to be harsher on the environment.
Good food is not about taste as much as what is NOT in/on it: pesticides. Put this up all you want, you won't change people from buying and demanding organic and pesticide free foods.
The profanity really does you a discredit, by the way. Can't find a larger word to use?
Organic foods do have more enzymes and nutrients. I.e. Better for your health.
There are studies showing that conventional farming produces oranges that have 0% Vitamin C. Not all, but they do come out of the ground that way because conventional farming does NOT replace their soils with nutrients. Organic farming does.
@metzger90 Most people in western countries can grow food on their properties but do not. Many people pay a landscaper to mow their lawn etc., so that same cost could go to a landscaper to plant, maintain and harvest vegetables, fruits etc. Even if you spend a few hours a week mowing,watering, fertilizing etc. your own lawn, you could use that same time, effort and cost to maintain some berry bushes etc. instead.
A taste test with idoits... What's that prove ? Nothing... Its not about the taste its about the amount of toxins you digest over time. Not to mention most of the hustle that gmo's produce more and a whole bunch of other rhetoric that is absolutely false. Companies such as Monsanto can't patient plants or seeds until they modify it in a lab. Mostly to make sure the plants don't bear any seeds for the farmers so they have to re-purchase. Bullshit is so far off point its fucking hilarious.
so many brainwashed people.
okumabear 3 weeks ago
@okumabear I know right, all these people that are brainwashed by magicians Penn and Teller who get paid to trick you.
myndy86 6 days ago
@myndy86
It's always an indication of how desperate and baseless a troll like yourselves arguments are when you eventually come across the "ZOMG MAGICIANS IZ LIARRRZZZES!!111" line. yeah, they're paid to trick people's eyes. the difference is,m they're HONEST and UP FRONT about it. Far from claiming actual powers, most magicians (P&T included) tend to make the debunking of psychics and such parts of their act.
Which makes them a good deal more honest than your lying, spamming ass.
NiceGuyCody 6 days ago
@NiceGuyCody P&T use trickery in some of these BS videos. For example in the "Eat this" episode they used a bait and switch to fool the audience into believing a Greepeace statement was false. The statement was that no government agency requires human testing of GMO's as part of their reglations. P&T used a statement that said GMO's are tested(but doesn't mention human tests) then basically called the Greenpeace guy a liar, even though P&T were lying by tricking the audience!
myndy86 5 days ago
@jn696
Keep rationalizing your paying more money for less and lower quality food by pretending you're saving the environment and protecting yourself from all sorts of nonexistent health hazards, dipshit.
NiceGuyCody 1 month ago
ITS THE SAME FUCKING BANANA
SongHooks1993 1 month ago
organic is a bunch of bullshit my grandma grew up on a farm in the 30s and 40s and she told me she grew organic but everything these days is either sprayed to grow faster and fuller or has something done to it, theres no escaping it nowdays whereas back then you could buy stuff straight off the farm.
SongHooks1993 1 month ago
I don't believe the organic claims, anyway. I look at the "organic" produce and it looks immaculate, which means they were grown commercially with some kind of pesticide. It's simple logic. The pesticides are used to keep the bugs off, if they weren't necessary, farmers wouldn't use them. You want real natural produce? Grow something in your garden, and enjoy the small size and picking out the bugs and worms. Bon Appetit!
tomatodamashi 2 months ago
mass media manipulation 101
Arkimedes999 2 months ago
@jn696
Keeping sucking organic cock faggot
mrclown88 2 months ago 2
friend of mine is a ginormous advocate of all things organic ..I'd show her this but it would most likely end up in a fight lol
bloodsling 3 months ago
@bloodsling If you believe Penn & Teller, then you haven`t done your research. For example the episode claims that coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue. Since studies suggest coffee REDUCES cancer risk about 30% on average, then Penn & Teller are claiming pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%. If you believe Penn & Teller, then try to finding scientific evidence to back up that insane claim, and you will realize that you got tricked by magicians!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 They did not claim that coffee caused cancer. The cancer risk comes from the manufacturing process of coffee (adding preservatives and shit). The comparison is to show that newer pesticides are generally very safe.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory The claim is coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue. The studies suggesting coffee reduces cancer risk for most cancers by an average of about 30%, used coffee the way it is typically used. The comparison of coffee and pesticide residue made in this video is false, so it does not " show that newer pesticides are generally very safe". For the comparison to be true, pesticide residue would have to reduce cancer risk 30,000%! It is insane to believe that!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 I don't know if you're trying to pretend to not know what they're saying or not. Their argument is basically the newer pesticides carry almost no cancer risk. They're saying that coffee has a cancer risk, but that's due to the manufacturing process of coffee, and not the coffee itself (for example, heavy metals are common contaminants).
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory I understand perfectly well what they are saying. They are saying coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue, this is basic math. Let's say pesticide residue increases cancer risk 1%, that means they are trying to say coffee increases cancer risk 1000%. Do you understand? So, because studies suggest coffee actually reduces cancer risk about 30% on average, that means they are trying to say pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 Keep in mind there are different types of cancers. Coffee could reduce one type of cancer, but it can cause a likelihood of another cancer. You have to compare the same cancer for both pesticide and coffee.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeadFishFactory Karolinska Intstituet in Stockholm, Sweden study, Uterine Cancer risk reduced 10% reuters"dot"com/article/2009/10/30/us-coffee-cancer-idUSTRE59T4KP20091030
Wayne State University study, Skin Cancer risk reduced 12%
news.softpedia"dot"com/news/The-Secret-of-HealthySkin-Coffee-83917.shtml
Karolinska Institutet study, Breast Cancer risk reduced 57%
worldhealth"dot"net/news/coffee-may-reduce-risks-certain-breast-cancers/
myndy86 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeadFishFactory Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri study, Liver Cancer risk reduced 41% sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/08/070801112146.htm
University of Utah study, Head and Neck Cancer risk reduced 39%
sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2010/06/100622142551.htm
myndy86 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory International Journal of Cancer (Volume 121, page 1312), Colon Cancer reduced 32% johnshopkinshealthalerts"dot"com/alerts/colon_cancer/JohnsHopkinsColonCancerHealthAlert_3051-1.html
Harvard School of Public Health study, Prostate Cancer reduced 20%
sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2011/05/110517162030.htm
The studies suggest coffee reduces the risk of most cancers by an average of about 30% as I said. Where is the evidence that pesticide residue reduces cancer at all?
myndy86 3 months ago
If that was me interviewed I would say the non organic was better. Then they would try to shock me and say "this ones non organic" then I would be like "okay? That's exactly what I buy and prefer."
Fredo5227 3 months ago
the tomatoes at my grocery store are gassed to make them red, and they are green and flavorless. Its impossible to have ripe tomatoes at the grocery store because they would rott in the shipping process from Mexico etc. I know the difference, this show is bullshit
FutureLaugh 4 months ago
Why does non-organic fruit taste better?
help4343 4 months ago
@help4343 Because non-organic fruit uses fertilizers to give it tons of nutrition. Similar to how taking vitamins makes a human healthier. Non-organic fruit grows-up healthier (and tastier)
.
electrictroy2010 4 months ago
@electrictroy2010 University of Kassel "Studies under controlled experimental conditions show a clear advantage for staple food grown under biological/ecological farming conditions as compared to those from conventional farming methods."" lower undesirable (e.g. nitrates) and higher desirable (e.g. vit. C, trace elements) components are present." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3054635
myndy86 3 months ago
@electrictroy2010 Orv Heti "Organic crops contain a significantly higher amount of certain antioxidants (vitamin C, polyphenols and flavonoids) and minerals, as well as have higher dry matter content than conventional ones.""there is a lower level of pesticide residues, nitrate and some heavy metal contaminations in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755
myndy86 3 months ago
@electrictroy2010 Universitetet i Oslo, "A review of existing literature reveals that organic foods compared to conventionally produced foods seem to have a higher content of antioxidants in plant products and a higher content of fat-soluble vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids in animal products. Animal studies (among them, on rabbits and chickens) show higher fertility and less morbidity in animals fed organically." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15195159
myndy86 3 months ago
@electrictroy2010 French government food safety agency AFSSA "1/organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals(Fe, Mg);and contain more anti-oxidant micronutrients such as phenols and salicylic acid, 2/organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids""4/ 94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues, 5/ organic vegetables contain far less nitrates" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019&Itemid=129
myndy86 3 months ago
@help4343 Penn and Teller are magicians, they get paid to trick you. This taste test was clearly edited, and these are probably just paid actors. For unedited results of a taste test not done by magicians, type "Organic or Conventional? (2 of 2)" in the youtube search.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86
Penn and Teller are honest magicians and make it clear that they are doing tricks and don't have real magic powers. When they perform on T.V. shows they usually have at least one trick where they show the audience how it is done. What evidence do you have that they cheated on the taste test? They did only show those who failed the test, but they also gave the percentages of the whole test.
help4343 3 months ago
@help4343 What evidence do you have that they didn't cheat on the test? I believe the stats were something like only 5% chose the organic food. No peer reviewed study that I am aware of had stats like that! This episode is filled with false claims, like coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue. Since most studies suggest coffee reduces risk of most cancers by about 30% on average, that means they claim pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%! That's BS!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86
It was 71% chose the inorganic tomatoes and 80% the inorganic apples. Where did you get 5%?
help4343 3 months ago
@help4343 My mistake, it's been awhile since I watched the video. I was confusing the 9/10 "guessed really wrong" stat with 9/10 chose inorganic. Still 71% and 80% chose inorganic stats are not consistent with the "more people prefer organic" result of most studies. My argument is that the huge majority of anti-organic statements made in this video are just insane and not backed by peer reviewed studies, like their false coffee claim, so most likely their taste test is not accurate either.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 Maybe the studies that show that people prefer organic over organic were not done blindly? The banana girl clearly shows that people view organic food in a more positive light.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory You said, "Maybe the studies that show that people prefer organic over organic were not done blindly?" The studies I am referring to, were done blindly. You are correct that people view organic food in a more positive light, however that would not change the result of a study where a person(or animal) chooses between two foods(one organic and one not) not knowing which is organic.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 I don't know why you are suggesting animals preferring one food over another has to do with anything seeing as how animals would eat either one regardless.
I can't find a study where a blind test was conducted. All of the "studies" I come across where people prefer organic food were from surveys. Care to link me to one?
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory "I don't know why you are suggesting animals preferring one food over another has to do with anything seeing as how animals would eat either one regardless." People will usually eat either one regardless as well, it's not as if people are spitting out the food if it's not organic or is organic. They are eating it either way, it is just a matter of which one they prefer.
I have never seen a survey "study" that people prefer organic. Give me a minute to find some studies.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 True. I'd eat organic or non-organic, but that's not the issue to me. The issue is the cost. Organic brand food is usually way more expensive. If I can't tell the difference, nor do I care for the difference, then I'll buy the cheaper one.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory "when given a choice, animals prefer organic to conventionally produced fodder." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15195159
"Organic crops also contain statistically more mineral compounds and usually have better sensory and long-term storage qualities." onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsfa.3000/abstract
"compared with the conventional and integrated systems, the organic system produced sweeter and less tart apples" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11309616
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 None of them work for me. You sure I don't need some kind of subscription to view it.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory Youtube doesn't allow links in the comments. To get them to work you have to add h t t p : / / w w w . without the spaces in front of the links and in some cases you have to change the "dot" to a .
I'm just going to personal message you the links to make it easy.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 This is why it helps to delve into the technical science article and not so much science news media (which may be helpful to informing the public about science, but they tend to exaggerate). The actual studies used questionnaires and surveys. There surveys showed a correlation between people who drink coffee and reduced cancer risk, but it's unacceptable to say that drinking coffee is what caused it.
But that's not my point.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@myndy86 I never said that coffee couldn't reduce cancer, I was saying that Penn was making a point that pesticides are extremely safe now, and the coffee statistic was just a comparison note (and again, the cancer Penn mentions from coffee could be from preservatives or heavy metal contamination).
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory I only gave you a small fraction of the studies that have been done, there have been numerous studies and meta-analyses done over the past 20 years, so it really isn't "jumping the gun". The video is making a false statement and so it can not be making a "point" about anything. The coffee statistic was a false comparison that leads people to believe that pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%, which is insane! It calls into question every anti-organic claim they made.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 Surveys are nice and all, but it's still jumping the gun to claim it. I guarantee you that 20 years of studies WILL show you that increased consumption of ice cream will increase your chances of drowning. The correlation is nice, but you can't assume that eating ice cream will cause you to drown (in this particular case, eating ice cream correlates with drowning because ice cream consumption increase during summer, where more people swim as well).
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory You are not understanding the studies. They are giving an exact % while looking at all factors, you can not find a study that "WILL show you that increased consumption of ice cream will increase your chances of drowning" that can give a % of risk because that is just a correlation, the coffee factor shows causation which is why they can determine a specific % factor. You could not find a study that ice cream increases drowning that is as false a claim as P&T coffee comparison!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 No, causation studies would be if you take like 5000 people who don't drink coffee and make them drink coffee, and track them over their whole life to see how much of them develop cancer (with controls). And even that you wouldn't be able to say with certainty that coffee was what reduced their cancer risk.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory That has been done in animal studies and actually giving them carcinogens and one group coffee, with a control, etc.. You may not understand Hill's Criteria for causation. The reality is a claim like coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue is really just insane and even your argument confirms this by stating "everything has a cancer risk" while this video claims pesticide residue has no cancer risk.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 Yes, everything has a cancer risk. However, you're saying that coffee has no cancer risk because it reduces cancer risk. I'm saying that both coffee and pesticide have cancer risk, and Penn is saying that pesticides nowadays are so safe that their cancer risk is less than that of coffee's.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@myndy86 They never said pesticide residue reduces cancer risk. They said that pesticide residue is LESS of a cancer risk. There's a difference.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory There isn't a difference when the huge majority of studies suggest coffee reduces cancer risk for most cancers about 30% on average, then their claim of pesticide residue having "LESS of a cancer risk" would mean pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%. They make numerous false claims, like saying there is no evidence whatsoever that any organic food has higher nutrient levels than conventional, but MOST studies suggest organic generally does have more nutrients.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 You're implying correlation means causation again. Even then, you're committing some kind of math error.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that coffee does reduce all types of cancer by 30%. If pesticide residue is 1000x less likely to cause cancer than coffee, we have to look at the cancer risk of coffee, not its reducing effects. For this purpose, if we assume the cancer risk from coffee is 0%, then 1000% of 0% is still 0%.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory Except coffee really has a -30% cancer risk! The studies I gave you actually suggest cancer risk is even lower when the person drinks more coffee per day, 30% is actually the average of the lowest amount of coffee drank per day. You are also not doing the math correctly, its not 1000% of cancer risk for coffee, it is 1000x more cancer risk than pesticide residue, so if we assume pesticide residue increaes cancer risk 1%, then they claim coffee has 1000% cancer risk.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 But you just agreed with me that everything has a cancer risk. The point Penn is trying to make is that pesticides are extremely safe compared to 50 years ago (when they did pose a cancer risk).
Something that is meant to be ingested does not have a 1% cancer risk. Cancer risk for these things are like 1E-10% or something really small. Otherwise, you'd have an epidemic of cancers and the FDA or EPA would ban it from consumption. And 1000x of 0% is still 0%.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory No, I didn't agree with you, I just said that was your argument. Even if the risk of cancer for pesticide residue actually increased .01%, the claim is still insane based on the overwhelming evidence that coffee reduces the risk of most cancers. Your math is fuzzy, 1000x -30% is -30,000%, this is basic math. If the risk is a negative number you don't automatically round that number to 0%.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 You're using the math incorrectly and you're assuming that drinking coffee would reduce cancer risk by 30% (this number was derived from surveys, remember that). Again, I said the cancer risk from the coffee could come from harmful preservatives or heavy metal contamination. This is a cancer risk unrelated to whether or not coffee could reduce cancer risk. Penn is pointing out that based on that, pesticides are extremely safe today.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory I would also like to point out that many of the synthetic pesticides used 50 years ago are still used today so again by your logic pesticides do pose a cancer risk!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 Yes, the pesticides that are used 50 years ago are being used on organic fruits and vegetables. Using up-to-date pesticides are too mainstream or something.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory There are no synthetic pesticides used in organic farming! Conventional farming still uses some of the pesticides,etc. they used 50 years ago! My math is good, you are falsely turning coffee reduces cancer risk 30%, to coffee has 0% cancer risk. You are using fuzzy math to try to justify P&T's false statement. There is evidence in surveys and animal studies coffee redues cancer risk, but where is the evidence pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 1000 times more than coffee?
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 I'm not proving their statement one way or another because I don't know where they got their information or what cancer they're talking about (and P&T say they don't put out false information). I'm telling you that the way you're using math is wrong and that the point Penn was making is that pesticides used today are extremely safe.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory My math is good, but your math is just made up. If something has a negative risk you don't just call that 0%. You said "if we assume the cancer risk from coffee is 0%, then 1000% of 0% is still 0%." Your argument here is that P&T are being dishonest! They could have said coffee has the same risk as pesticide residue, but by your argument they used 1000x because anything times 0 is 0, which is dishonest contrary to your statement "Penn and Teller are honest magicians".
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 Your whole cancer risk analysis is wonky simply because you assume that cancer risk is a black-and-white plus-or-minus issue. This might be a crazy concept, but your body doesn't work that way. You can't just slap "-30% cancer risk" on to something and then use that as a basis for your math.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory Not everyone is going to have a 30% cancer risk reduction by drinking coffee, this is the average of the lowest amount of coffee consumed suggested in the studies. Your same argument is used against you, "Your whole cancer risk analysis is wonky simply because you assume that cancer risk is a black-and-white plus-or-minus issue.", so by your argument them saying coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue is "wonky"!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 I didn't say that. Penn did, and I'm taking that as, "wow, pesticides must be really safe today." You're taking it as, "LOOL, 30000% reduction in cancer risk!"
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory You said "I don't know where they got their information or what cancer they're talking about" Even if P&T were talking about some specific cancer, the statement was "cancer risk" and not some specific cancer risk, so the statement is still false. You really have done nothing to support their statement other than say "P&T say they don't put out false information" and try say coffee reduces cancer risk 30%, means coffee has 0% cancer risk, which is just bad math!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 I don't need to support their statement, because unlike you, I was seeing their point. The coffee was merely a comparison for how safe pesticides have become.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory You said "coffee was merely a comparison for how safe pesticides have become." If they said coffee probably has about similar cancer risk as pesticide residue, then your argument might make sense, but they specifically said 1000 times more! By giving a specific amount and not saying probably it is no longer a hypothetical comparison. The huge majority of studies looking at human consumption, animal studies and biochemical analysis suggest coffee generally reduces cancer risk!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 That's their claim not mine. I'm only going on their word because Penn and Teller don't lie, no matter how biased their show is.
The links you sent me, if you read it, said that the studies were conducted via surveys.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory Maybe P&T aren't purposely lying, maybe they just got false info from the people in the video, like Alex Avery(wikipedia states"New York Times pointed out that Avery`s non-profit employer has received funding from Monsanto Company") and Ronald Bailey(wikipedia states"he earned a B.A. in philosophy and economics", no mention of a degree in food and nutrition, etc.). P&T didn't look at the biased and unqualified anti-organic "scientists" claims, they just took their word for it.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 Penn and Teller also employ their own research time that fact-checks everything the people they interview claim. The bias part comes in here because the incorrect statements the people that is on their side make, they don't show it.
If they show a claim that they didn't call bullshit on, then chances are it is accurate.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory You give P&T way too much credit. P&T made the false claim secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer when the overwhelming evidence suggested it did. When they were confronted with the evidence they later admitted that they were probably wrong. Had they did the fact checking you claim they do, then they would have found the overwhelming evidence that existed that secondhand smoke most likely does cause cancer. I know P&T make false statements, there are many in this video alone.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 The data at the time suggested that secondhand smoke didn't cause harm. But you can see that they did admit that they were wrong, so it's not like they were doing it out of any agenda. They said that new data suggested that second hand smoke could cause harm, so it was sort of an errata.
However, that wasn't their main point, anyway. Much like this. Their main point isn't that coffee reduces or doesn't reduce cancer, it's that the organic food claim that pesticides are harmful iswrong
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory The majority of studies at the time(as I already mentioned) DID suggest secondhand smoke caused cancer. Their excuse was that a new meta analysis was done(which included many of the studies they overlooked) that suggested they were wrong. Another example is when Penn admitted he never watched the tower 7 video. They make these BS videos without doing much research and they even admit that! Penn said "we don’t do all our own research. We are hosts who do the best job we can."
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 They're entertainers. They have people to do research for them.
And I still trust what they say for the most part--anything they claim that sounds too good to be true I would look it up myself.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeadFishFactory You said "anything they claim that sounds too good to be true I would look it up myself. " So, doesn' t the claim that coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue, sound too good to be true? As I have been asking you, look it up for yourself, try to find evidence to back that claim.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86
"They make these BS videos without doing much research "
Says the 9/11 Conspiracy Whacko. lolz
NiceGuyCody 1 month ago
@NiceGuyCody 9/11 conspiracy? What are you talking about?
myndy86 1 month ago
@DeadFishFactory You said "Their main point isn't that coffee reduces or doesn't reduce cancer, it's that the organic food claim that pesticides are harmful iswrong", pesticides generally ARE harmful and that isn't coming from organic food people it is acknowledged by the scientific community in thousands of studies and the medical community with thousands of cases of illnesses caused by pesticides. If you really believe pesticides aren't harmful then you got tricked by magicians!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 There's no such thing as pesticide-free farming. They have to use pesticide, and the newer ones are safe. Yes, they can still pose a risk, but it's negligible unless you intend on drinking the pesticides straight.
Again, some farms use old pesticides (organic farms for example), but a lot of them use the new ones. You're claiming that because some farms use old pesticides, that means all of farming is using old pesticides.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory There is a such thing as pesticide free farming. 52% of organic farms use no pesticides whatsoever and those that do use significantly less than conventional farms and organic uses more biological pest control like crop rotation, crop cover, predatory insects etc. than conventional. USDA states "organic produce carries significantly fewer pesticide residues than conventional produce." nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/faq/BuyOrganicFoodsC.shtml
myndy86 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods""Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown samples. Comparison of specific residues on specific crops found that residue concentrations in organic samples were consistently lower than in the other two categories, across all three data sets." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028642
myndy86 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory Studies suggest organic farmining itself reduces insect infestations compared to conventional "abundance of cereal aphids was five times lower in organic fields, while predator abundances were three times higher and predator-prey ratios twenty times higher in organic fields"" Insecticide treatment in conventional fields had only a short-term effect on aphid densities while later in the season aphid abundances were even higher" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3097189/
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86
"Studies suggest organic farmining itself reduces insect infestations"
Uh huh. And smothering yourself in pig blood and flailing about in water has shown to lessen the risk of shark attacks.
NiceGuyCody 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NiceGuyCody I post PEER REVIEWED STUDIES, you just believe magicians, LMAO! "abundance of cereal aphids was five times lower in organic fields, while predator abundances were three times higher and predator-prey ratios twenty times higher in organic fields""Insecticide treatment in conventional fields had only a short-term effect on aphid densities while later in the season aphid abundances were even higher"ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3097189/
myndy86 1 month ago
@DeadFishFactory French government food safety agency(AFSSA) states "94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019&Itemid=129 Organic food generally doesn't have pesticide residue because as I stated, most organic farmers use no pesticides, those that do use significantly less than conventional and organic farming itself can reduce harmful insects. Don't just believe P&T, look it up!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86
" because as I stated, most organic farmers use no pesticides"
You're not very good at lying, huh?
NiceGuyCody 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NiceGuyCody "In conclusion, we were able to demonstrate that an organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to organophosphorus pesticides that are commonly used in agricultural production. We also concluded that these children were most likely exposed to these organophosphorus pesticides exclusively through their diet." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1367841/
myndy86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NiceGuyCody "Organic crops contain fewer nitrates, nitrites and pesticide residues" onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsfa.3000/abstract
"intake of organic foods leads to some advantages, such as the ingestion of a higher content of phenolic compounds and some vitamins, such as vitamin C, and a lower content of nitrates and pesticides" onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02436.x/abstract
myndy86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NiceGuyCody It is actually at the point that virtually everyone in agriculture accepts that organic has fewer pesticide residues. "94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019&Itemid=129
.""there is a lower level of pesticide residues, nitrate and some heavy metal contaminations in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755
myndy86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NiceGuyCody 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and those that do generally use significantly less than conventional farms and organic uses more biological pest control like crop rotation, crop cover, predatory insects etc. than conventional. USDA states "organic produce carries significantly fewer pesticide residues than conventional produce." nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/faq/BuyOrganicFoodsC.shtml
myndy86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NiceGuyCody "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods""Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown""Comparison of specific residues on specific crops found that residue concentrations in organic samples were consistently lower than in the other two categories, across all three data sets." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028642
myndy86 1 month ago
@NiceGuyCody "Pesticide residues were only detected in farms using conventional agriculture practices while no pesticides were detected in grapes from farms using organic or integrated pest management." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20213057
"To go organic does not necessarily mean that organic products are totally free of chemical pesticides but they have a lower pesticide residue."ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14736111
myndy86 1 month ago
@NiceGuyCody "conventional (C) and organic (O)""Contamination among the two types of potatoes varied from a season to another and contamination of C potatoes was nearly 2 times that of O potatoes either by pesticides or heavy metals." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19138717
myndy86 1 month ago
@NiceGuyCody "Fresh potatoes (228 samples) from 34 farmers' markets in Alberta were analyzed for 29 pesticides. Residues of three different pesticides were found in the samples tested""No pesticide residues were detected in 23 potato samples obtained from certified organic farmers." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21909624
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 So whats youre point.Synthetic pesticides are designed to be safe for human consumption
tomas6262 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tomas6262 If you look at this study, "organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to organophosphorus pesticides.""children were most likely exposed to these organophosphorus pesticides exclusively through their diet." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1367841/
Then this, "These findings support the hypothesis that organophosphate exposure, at levels common among US children, may contribute to ADHD prevalence."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20478945
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 EPA website states "Pesticides may harm a developing child by blocking the absorption of important food nutrients necessary for normal healthy growth. Another way pesticides may cause harm is if a child's excretory system is not fully developed, the body may not fully remove pesticides. Also, there are "critical periods" in human development when exposure to a toxin can permanently alter the way an individual's biological system operates." epa.gov/opp00001/food/pest.htm
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 Let's look at the most commonly used synthetic herbicide, glyphosate, for example and what studies suggest in regards to adverse health affects to developing animals, children, fetuses, etc., "glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use""We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15929894
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 "Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684
"Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development""Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated regarding their toxic or hormonal impact." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17486286
"Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 “The pooled analysis of NHL and HCL was based on 515 cases and 1141 controls. Increased risks in univariate analysis were found for subjects exposed to herbicides (OR 1.75, CI 95% 1.26-2.42)”“Among herbicides, significant associations were found for glyphosate (OR 3.04, CI 95% 1.08-8.52)” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12148884
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 "Reported use of several individual pesticides was associated with increased NHL incidence, including organophosphate insecticides coumaphos, diazinon, and fonofos, insecticides chlordane, dieldrin, and copper acetoarsenite, and herbicides atrazine, glyphosate, and sodium chlorate. A subanalysis of these "potentially carcinogenic" pesticides suggested a positive trend of risk with exposure to increasing numbers."ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1740618/
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 “We report a population based case-control study of exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).”“Exposure to glyphosate gave OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.10-3.71 and with>10 years latency period OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.16-4.40.”In conclusion our study confirmed an association between exposure to phenoxyacetic acids and NHL and the association with glyphosate was considerably strengthened.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18623080
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 “These results suggest that commercial formulation of glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor in vivo, causing disturbances in the reproductive development of rats when the exposure was performed during the puberty period.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20012598
“The levels of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of glyphosate occurring in mammalian cells suggested that its mechanism of action is not limited to plant cells.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16276681
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 “effects of the Roundup""exposure to the herbicide resulted in alterations in the structure of the testis and epididymal region as well as in the serum levels of testosterone and estradiol, with changes in the expression of androgen receptors restricted to the testis. The harmful effects were more conspicuous in the proximal efferent ductules and epididymal ducts, suggesting higher sensitivity of these segments among the male genital organs.”ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17166697
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 “AMPA is the major environmental breakdown product of glyphosate.””the level of DNA damage in exposed cells at 2.5-7.5mM showed a significant increase compared with the control group. In human lymphocytes we found statistically significant clastogenic effect AMPA at 1.8mM compared with the control group. In vivo, the micronucleus test rendered significant statistical increases at 200-400mg/kg. AMPA was genotoxic in the three performed tests.”ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19013644
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 “glyphosate and its formulation on mature rat fresh testicular cells from 1 to 10000ppm, thus from the range in some human urine and in environment to agricultural levels.""Leydig cells are damaged. Within 24-48h this formulation is also toxic on the other cells, mainly by necrosis""At lower non toxic concentrations of Roundup and glyphosate (1ppm), the main endocrine disruption is a testosterone decrease by 35%.”ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22200534
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 "adverse reproductive effects on male offspring rats: a decrease in sperm number per epididymis tail and in daily sperm production during adulthood, an increase in the percentage of abnormal sperms and a dose-related decrease in the serum testosterone level at puberty, and signs of individual spermatid degeneration""in utero and lactational exposure to glyphosate-Roundup may induce significant adverse effects on the reproductive system” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17634926
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 “These results suggest that maternal exposure to glyphosate disturbed the masculinization process and promoted behavioral changes and histological and endocrine problems in reproductive parameters. These changes associated with the hypersecretion of androgens increased gonadal activity and sperm production.”ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22120950
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 “we have studied the effects of the herbicide glyphosate on several enzymes of pregnant rats.”“The results suggest that maternal exposure to agrochemicals during pregnancy induces a variety of functional abnormalities in the specific activity of the enzymes in the studied organs of the pregnant rats and their fetuses.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11237511
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 “Results showed a 50%, mortality rate for dams treated with 1000 mg/kg glyphosate. Skeletal alterations were observed in 15.4, 33.1, 42.0 and 57.3% of fetuses from the control, 500, 750 and 1000 mg/kg glyphosate groups, respectively. We may conclude that glyphosate-Roundup is toxic to the dams and induces developmental retardation of the fetal skeleton.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12765238
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 The dozens of studies I just replied to you with, are just a small sample of studies, there are many more suggesting adverse health affects of glyphosate, and that is just one synthetic pesticide, there are many more. Synthetic pesticides were not designed to be safe for human consumption, thousands of people commit suicide every year by ingesting synthetic pesticides. Synthetic pesticides from diet are especially not safe for consumption by children and pregnant women.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Youre point is semi-valid.the devil is in the details.There are numerous chemicals that are deadly at one dose,but perfectly safe at a lower dose.Aspartame Msg,for example are only harmful at levels hundreds if not thousands of times higher than average consumption
tomas6262 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tomas6262 It's dose dependant, but affects occur at levels found in kids, etc."glyphosate and its formulation on mature rat fresh testicular cells from 1 to 10000ppm, thus from the range in some human urine and in environment to agricultural levels.", "glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use", "organophosphate exposure, at levels common among US children, may contribute to ADHD prevalence.", etc.
myndy86 1 month ago
@tomas6262 All your pubmed articles are 404: does not exist.
Except this one ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105
Which is about Chloroplast (aka plants) and their ability to stabilize different ions, doesn't mention any animal tissue.
Good job citing non-existent articles.
MeruFM 1 week ago
@MeruFM Do you mean ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105591 Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells.? Youtube doesn't allow links in the comments, try typing the quotes(without quotation marks) from the studies in a search engine like Google, etc. and the Pubmed links should come up in the search.
myndy86 6 days ago
@myndy86
How much does Trader Joe's pay you to sit on the computer and spam your anti-science propaganda all over these videos, anyway?
NiceGuyCody 6 days ago
@NiceGuyCody Nobody pays me to comment. How much does pesticide companies, etc. pay you to spam your anti-science propaganda all over these videos? Considering you claim dozens of studies published in peer reviewed journals by independent scientists, the UN, etc. "wasn't true, reliable or peer reviewed", it is obvious who is "anti-science ".
myndy86 5 days ago
@myndy86
Yeah, I read your bullshit the first 800 times you spammed it. I wasn't true, reliable or peer reviewed then, either.
NiceGuyCody 6 days ago
@NiceGuyCody You obviously have no idea what peer reviewed means. Stop running your mouth about things you clearly don't understand. Anyone can read the studies I posted and look at the journals they were published in and see for themselves that they are peer reviewed and that you are just making false statements because you have no other arguments.
myndy86 5 days ago
@DeadFishFactory You said "they can still pose a risk, but it's negligible unless you intend on drinking the pesticides", Thousands of cases of illnesses every year are attributed to pesticide exposure, not caused by drinking them. You said "You're claiming that because some farms use old pesticides, that means all of farming" I never said ALL conventional farms, but the majority of conventional farms use Roundup(used 40 years ago)! You said ALL organic farms use pesticides, which is false!
myndy86 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory Let's look at a pesticide that most conventional farms use Roundup(glyphosate), "Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination. Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated regarding their toxic or hormonal impact." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17486286 "Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105591
myndy86 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory More studies, "glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use""We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15929894 "Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 lol and the radiation emmited from electronic devices are dangerous for our body too. that's obviously not stopping you from using them...
nasheacarlos 2 months ago
@nasheacarlos The difference is that there is a safer alternative to conventional food. If you know of a safer alternative to electronic devices, that serve the same purpose in a similar time frame, etc., then let me know and I will gladly use them.
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy86 Well organic food isn't produced in a similar time frame as "conventional" food, it's more expensive and less convenient since it's harder to grow. Not saying organic foods aren't beneficial; but, there are a lot more dangerous things you could bitch about. Go try and save the world by getting people to use electric cars and renewable energy which would have a much greater impact then switching people to organic food...
nasheacarlos 2 months ago
@nasheacarlos Organic doesn't generally grow slower! Especially compared to an email going 1000 miles to mailing a letter by horseback, which is no electronic devices used. Harder to grow? It takes more knowledge to grow organic but that doesn't really mean harder.
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy86 If it's not harder to grow, more conveniant, and it grows in the same speed why doesn't everyone just grow organically? Yes it has it's advantages no ones disagreeing with that; but, their are other simpler things that can be done that will have greater benefits! Tell people to take shorter showers and water their lawns in the morning or at night. For greenhouse gases have ELECTRIC CARS!
nasheacarlos 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nasheacarlos I wouldn't say it is more convenient except perhaps in developing countries, but a main reason people don't grow organic is because the conversion process is expensive and you can not sell the food as organic for several years. So, it is basically the certification process that deters farmers. For "Tell people to take shorter showers.""For greenhouse gases have ELECTRIC CARS!" I'm not arguing against that, and I do that. However, I generally don't like lawns.
myndy86 2 months ago
@nasheacarlos "With a few exceptions, studies point to environmental advantages for organic farming practices with respect to a) maintaining or building soil quality, b) lessening ground and surface water contamination, c) reducing greenhouse gas emissions, d) encouraging biodiversity, e) conserving water and energy resources, and, f) recycling waste." nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/faq/BuyOrganicFoodsD.shtml
myndy86 2 months ago
@nasheacarlos "Organic farming leads to many improvements to the natural environment, including increased water retention in soils, improvements in the water table (with more drinking water in the dry season), reduced soil erosion combined with improved organic matter in soil leading to better carbon sequestration, and increased agro-biodiversity."unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
myndy86 2 months ago
@DeadFishFactory You said, "Their main point isn't that coffee reduces or doesn't reduce cancer, it's that the organic food claim that pesticides are harmful iswrong" But you admitted, "The point Penn is trying to make is that pesticides are extremely safe compared to 50 years ago (when they did pose a cancer risk). As I stated before many pesticides used 50 years ago are still used today, so you just admitted that Penn's "point" is false and many pesticides used today, "pose a cancer risk"!
myndy86 3 months ago
@DeadFishFactory Your(and P&T) argument makes no sense, when you consider that many pesticides/herbicides/fungicides that were used 40 or 50 years ago are still used today. Take Roundup(glyphosate) for example. Roundup has been used for the past 40 years and is still one of the most common herbicides used in agriculture. So, you(and P&T) trying to say pesticides, etc. are safer now than 40 or 50 years ago is BS when many of the same pesticides are still being used today!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 You're making it sound like every farm uses the same pesticides from 50 years ago. Some do. Some don't.
Most don't.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeadFishFactory I'm not "making it sound like every farm uses the same pesticides from 50 years ago", however, the huge majority of conventional farms DO use Roundup(used 40 years ago). Even synthetic pesticides from the 1950's like 4-chloro-2-methyl phenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) are still being used by conventional farmers today.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 However, everything has a cancer risk. Things like the manufacturing process can cause heavy metal contamination, or the preservatives used are known to cause cancer, can increase the risk of a type of cancer (while the product itself might reduce other cancers). Pesticides would probably fall under that same type of cancer as heavy metals or preservatives.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
@myndy86 I shouldn't say "reduced cancer risk". The surveys showed that the group that answered "yes" to drinking coffee daily had less people with a specific type of cancer than the group that answered "no." It's a nice correlation, but it's jumping the gun to say that coffee could reduce cancer risk.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
Amanda was schooled. So embarrassing for her haha
seethestarsflyy 4 months ago
@Grayfog Lol! @ Morons who believe magicians who get paid to trick you, instead of scientists.
myndy86 5 months ago
lol @ the hipster faggot posting "studies" and "statistics" in the comments of these vids for months on end.
Grayfog 5 months ago
@sypoth Can you reference a peer reviewed study suggesting organic could only feed 1 billion people? The huge majority of peer reviewed studies/UN reports suggest organic can feed the current world population using the amount of current agricultural land, while increasing average yields 80% in poor countries. The huge majority of studies also suggest organic is more nutritious and conventional farming is more likely to cause an outbreak through pesticide resistant insects.
myndy86 5 months ago
@BeaveHolio A survey found 17% of organic farms tested for GM contamination and 11% of those tested had GM contamination. That means even Non-GM seeds can be and often are GM contaminated making it possible for a biotech company to sue the Non-GM seed user for patent infringement. So, no they can`t just use Non-GM seeds.
myndy86 5 months ago 2
They aren't the only ones to do a study like this, and all the studies come back with the same results. Organic Farming is unsustainable, if every possible surface were to be dedicated to organic farms it would only feed 1 billion people. Organic farming is worse for the environment because it allows proliferation of pest species such as locusts that move on to destroy surrounding ecosystems, modern pesticides are harmless unlike 60 years ago, nutrients are the same, and the taste is no diff.
sypoth 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is complete bs, organic is better not because of taste, but because of no use of pesticides aswell as a higher nutritianal value dip shits. this clip is from a tv show that has been create by the media and govermantal convergence to get people to start buying more nonorganic fruits and veggies so they can start making the money back they have been losing for years, i disrespect the fact that someone posted this for all to see its not bad enough its on tv for sheeple too view
zackthisguy 6 months ago
When did, (what are you guys, magicians?) P&T become activists? Like the Amusing Randi, it accomplishes nothing to try to debunk or make people look foolish, unless they hurt themselves in the process. Then its a money making tv show, but this is truly a waste of time.
bassicwill 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bassicwill
"Like the Amusing Randi, it accomplishes nothing to try to debunk or make people look foolish"
Uri Geller, is that you?
NiceGuyCody 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pookie7985 If you believe Penn & Teller, then you haven`t done your research. For example the episode claims that coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue. Since studies suggest coffee REDUCES cancer risk about 30% on average, then Penn & Teller are claiming pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%. If you believe Penn & Teller, then try to finding scientific evidence to back up that insane claim, and you will realize that you got tricked by magicians!
myndy86 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pookie7985 52% of organic farmers use NO pesticides whatsoever and those that do generally use significantly less than conventional farmers. If organic pesticides like Bt, are more harmful to the environment as you claim, then since many GM crops use Bt, GM crops must be MORE harmful than organic because 100% of GM Bt crops are supposed to express Bt, where as only 48% of organic farmers use pesticides and they don`t use them 100% of the time like GM Bt crops do.
myndy86 6 months ago
@aprilreeves1 this episode actually covers the topic of organics being "pesticide free". They state that organic farms still use pesticides otherwise their farms wouldn't have enough yeilds to meet demand and the pesticides that they use are from older methods that have been proven to be harsher on the environment.
Pookie7985 6 months ago
Good food is not about taste as much as what is NOT in/on it: pesticides. Put this up all you want, you won't change people from buying and demanding organic and pesticide free foods.
The profanity really does you a discredit, by the way. Can't find a larger word to use?
aprilreeves1 7 months ago
Penn & Teller is ruthless...ha
TheJovanist 7 months ago
Organic foods do have more enzymes and nutrients. I.e. Better for your health.
There are studies showing that conventional farming produces oranges that have 0% Vitamin C. Not all, but they do come out of the ground that way because conventional farming does NOT replace their soils with nutrients. Organic farming does.
babysittertube 7 months ago
@metzger90 Most people in western countries can grow food on their properties but do not. Many people pay a landscaper to mow their lawn etc., so that same cost could go to a landscaper to plant, maintain and harvest vegetables, fruits etc. Even if you spend a few hours a week mowing,watering, fertilizing etc. your own lawn, you could use that same time, effort and cost to maintain some berry bushes etc. instead.
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86 people do that. But not everyone is going to do that.
tehatemachine 7 months ago
Banana girl got fucking owned
mrclown88 7 months ago 18
@mrclown88
it's the hippie queen
gonavygonavy 4 months ago
A taste test with idoits... What's that prove ? Nothing... Its not about the taste its about the amount of toxins you digest over time. Not to mention most of the hustle that gmo's produce more and a whole bunch of other rhetoric that is absolutely false. Companies such as Monsanto can't patient plants or seeds until they modify it in a lab. Mostly to make sure the plants don't bear any seeds for the farmers so they have to re-purchase. Bullshit is so far off point its fucking hilarious.
crazypaul34 8 months ago
@crazypaul34
So they can use non gmo so they can keep their seeds.
BeaveHolio 5 months ago