Industries who stand to gain from fossil fuels, petrochemicals, industrial waste and illness have endless funds to misinform the public. There is no money in healthy thinking humans.
Look up the sideeffects of GMO and Monsanto's ties to the FDA. After progressive dietary problems, I saw a GMO labrat study that was uncannily familiar to my symptoms. As an experiment, I cut out the GMO and petrochemicals. 3 days was all it took for my system to fix itself. I owe my life to real food. Stay Healthy.
Look up the video "My Potato Project; The Importance of 'Organic.'" Have at it. This child proves Penn and Teller's 10 minute B.S. wrong in 3 minutes.
However, I wonder where they got all their 'facts' and 'figures' from? How do we know they're telling the truth about the percentage of organic food coming from China? How do we know organic food is any 'less organic' than North American o. food? They are driving the viewer into making assumptions... much as the other side does.
It makes me distrustful and suspect of all of them. lol
I have this exact argument with myself all the time. Growing food without pesticides is very difficult. I've tried. But I do think pesticide free (organic or not) is less challenging and less toxic to our systems and our planet. I don't buy organic all the time simply because I know that organic pesticides can be just as, or more, toxic than conventional pesticides. I also know conventional food is subsidized and so I can get it cheaper... which makes a difference in this economic climate.
fucking Penn and Teller love to slurp up the corporate whorish "Institutes" who's whole existence is to support their agro-chemical benefactors and create "controversial" shows for ratings.
@DetJohnKimbel GMO corn is one of the worst. Produce with the first number "4" is conventional sprayed food (no DNA mutation like GMO) "9" is organic, and "8" is GMO. GMO causes DNA mutations, sterility, disease, etc. Heavily processed foods usually contain GMO corn derivatives
"Then again, after seeing their Carl Junior's ad - I mean "fast food is good for you" episode "
Well, you clearly didn't watch it. Because no matter how many times you science-hating authoritarian dipshits insist upon it, nowhere in the episode is the claim that "fats food is healthy" made. But you've made it quite clear you're a peon who needs to hide behind circumstantial ad hominem and straw men to wish away any opposition to your dogmatic beliefs.
I love Pen and Teller and I agree with everything they generally say, however, I do not trust what people tell me. I take it in to account but when i see the shit they spray on crops I decided to go organic...Not completely but generally. A lot of stuff in Tesco now is pretty much the same price so why not? I dont trust the organic industry and I do not trust these institutes which rate food and do tests. Odds are both are funded by something corrupt or untrust worthy. I make my own mind up!
Buy from your fucking local farming who cares if it is labeled "organic". Ever hear of a CSA? Fuck these guys even though they have a point about some buyers the people that care about the environment want to know exactly where their food comes from and the effect on the environment.
They have ignored other benefits like increased biodiversity in and above ground (if it's not monocultured) and the amount of toxins in our body which may not cause cancer but have been shown to have effects on infants and children's brain function (GMOs + glyphosphate). They really fucked this one up bad. Just gives people more misinformation thank you Penn and Teller.
What they don't tell us is that big agriculture is subsidized by US taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars. So to say that organic food is expensive is to deny just how much we all spend GMO corn and soy and everything else. On top of that, GMO food have synthetic proteins that have been shown to increase food allergies across the board. Sorry Penn and Teller, I call bullshit on your bullshit.
@NiceGuyCody Subsidies create artificial lower prices of conventional foods which give the appearance of higher prices of organic. So once again your argument is just based on your uneducated opinion. Who cares if P&T oppose government subsidies anyway, mostly conventional farmers get government subsidies and government subsidies are a major contributing factor in third world poverty.
hahahaha I love when people who know nothing about toxicology start spewing from the mouth. Most Organic pesticides are far more toxic than any of the synthetics being produced today.
@rjsinca "hahahaha I love when people who know nothing about toxicology start spewing from the mouth." Most Organic pesticides are NOT more toxic than most of the synthetics being produced today. 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and those that do generally use significantly less than conventional farmers. For example, the most used herbicide in organic is vinegar, the most used herbicide in conventional is glyphosate. Provide evidence vinegar is "far more toxic"!
@rjsinca “Glyphosate (G) is the largest selling herbicide worldwide; the most common formulations (Roundup, R) contain polyoxyethyleneamine as main surfactant. Recent findings indicate that G exposure may cause DNA damage and cancer in humans.””we found genotoxic effects after short exposure to concentrations that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331240
@rjsinca "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
@rjsinca "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
@NiceGuyCody The only person spamming here is you! I have been providing studies by independent scientists from Universities who get government grants and therefore do not have a financial conflict of interest or independent UN researchers, etc. that counter your arguments in numerous video comments on youtube. You have mostly provided your own opinion, which you haven't backed with much of by anything other than what Monsanto told you.
@rjsinca “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
@rjsinca “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
@rjsinca “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
@rjsinca “we tested 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. We show that from 1 to 48h of Roundup exposure Leydig cells are damaged. Within 24-48h this formulation is also toxic on the other cells""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
@rjsinca “These findings suggest that in utero and lactational exposure to glyphosate-Roundup may induce significant adverse effects on the reproductive system of male Wistar rats at puberty and during adulthood.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17634926
“maternal exposure to glyphosate disturbed the masculinization process and promoted behavioral changes and histological and endocrine problems in reproductive parameters.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22120950
@rjsinca “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
@rjsinca “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
The Hudson Institute is a political wing think tank with an emphasis on military and defense. Says so right on their website. Way to pick an unbiased champion, Penn and Teller.
Then again, after seeing their Carl Junior's ad - I mean "fast food is good for you" episode - you realize just how well this show is named.
I have an idea for a TV show: We will grab the most outrageous example of an option that disagrees with us and we will back it up with a couple of guys wearing suits…
The people who protested for to the government to force farmers to spray pesticides are the same type of people who complain about those chemicals being on our food. Make up your mind you Progressive nut job.
@PiscesGal You mean "brainwashed and misinformed" by Penn and Teller and the biased and/or unqualified anti-organic so called "scientists" like Alex Avery and Ronald Bailey right?
@NiceGuyCody I don't get information from natural news, I get information from independent scientists from Universities who get government grants and therefore do not have a financial conflict of interest or independent UN researchers, etc., but I'm pretty sure you mean the science-hating Monsanto diarhea you've been spraying everywhere.
Fuck organic foods. I'll eat what's good and what's there. I'll eat organic, but only it's because I like it not because it's "healthier" or because "it will pull me closer to nature."
Isn't ironic that people who think are being better to the environment by eating organic food or driving a Prius are actually doing more damage than a person who eats only meat and drives a Land Rover Discovery
Isn't ironic that people who think are being better to the environment by eating organic food or driving a Prius are actually doing more damage than a person who eats only meat and drives a Land Rover Discovery
@muttley299 Isn't it ironic that those who believe people, "eating organic food or driving a Prius are actually doing more damage than a person who eats only meat and drives a Land Rover Discovery" are the same people who believe magicians(who get paid to trick you)?
In fact, most of the useful research today comes from (shocker) big corporations looking to make money. Monsanto can come up with a ton of scientifically valid evidence that debunks all of the bullshit myths about organic food, but you won't accept it because it is coming from monsanto. I'm guessing you will only accept science if it is science that you like and produced by scientifically inept organizations like greenpeace or PETA.
@supersmashbros011 Most useful research comes from independent scientists from Universities who get government grants and therefore do not have a financial conflict of interest or independent UN researchers, etc.. Companies cut corners on research to save money because they are trying to make as much profit as possible with the least expense. Can you give examples of what you mean by "myths about organic food" and provide Monsanto studies that "debunks" them.
"Most useful research comes from independent scientists from Universities who get government grants and therefore do not have a financial conflict of interest or independent UN researchers, etc.. "
Translation: Science only counts when it conforms to MY political confirmation bias.
@NiceGuyCody No, science counts when it is done by independent scientists from Universities who get government grants and therefore do not have a financial conflict of interest or independent UN researchers, etc. Obviously you are projecting, which is why you believe Monsanto and other companies like them come to conclusions that aren't biased, because those conclusions conform to YOUR political confirmation bias.
There were many more reasons for organic food being bullshit than then you "might mean you’re getting your food from giant corporations or China" listed in this episode. Just because you don't like corporations doesn't mean that the research produced by monsanto isn't valid.
Seriously entertaining, feels like I'm watching an SNL skit. Love the fact that Penn and Teller are owned by such "think tanks" as The Hudson Institute. Hmmm... let's just take a look at a FACT: The Hudson Institute is supported by donations from: let's take a look shall we ... Eli Lilly and Company, Monsanto Company, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra, Cargill, and Procter & Gamble... Gee wiz, I guess I can see why these guys choose this kind of propaganda!
Only thing this vid makes me wonder is how much money "Penn & Teller" got for this advertizement. Strategy behind the message is obvious with an odd looking pro Organic Couple vs. suite wearing "experts". Only thing video achieves is convincing the dumb to keep eating poisoned food and support the system built around it. This way everyone wins, Hospitals/Doctors keep making $ on the ill, drug companies keep getting sick people to further poison, and the cycle keeps going.. Love it.. Thx!
Penn and Teller can eat a fucking dick. Fucking pricks. Organics cost more because big food with all their cancer causing agents are over produced and over processed... Organics doesn't have to do with natural over unnatural. This whole piece is the fucking rimming of big food and big pharma. We should all be growing our OWN food in our own yards be people are goddamn lazy. Fuckers.
" We should all be growing our OWN food in our own yards"
Especially the handicapped, elderly and people who have no access to fertile land, right? Misinformed, self-righteous pieces of shit like you are what gave us Lysenkoism.
Problems with all this: Monsanto owns government. Government and business controls media and spin. Corporation's dollars sponsors scientists who are careful what they study and what the results are. And so on and so on.
Look closer at the 2 styles of farming and try to convince yourself conventional is somehow better in ANY way for our health, the environment, the animals or the planet. Impossible.
@wendax There are 12,000 born every day in the USA. 6,000 deaths every day. Also the math provided (458,000/307,006,550) You're not taking into account variables either. And yes, I took a 2008. So if 44,000 were diagnosed (44,000/(4015000-2190000)) based on new lives. So based on that math, in 2010 for that year. It is a 0.024%. But this is based on new life and death, and not current population. A variable is genetic disposition. There are greater ties to such a thing.
@burazekun Your math is wrong you have to times that by 100 to get a %. 10% of 100 is 10 but 10/100 is 0.1, that doesn't mean its 0.1%. Like I said it is over 0.1% and you are not taking into account lifetime occurrence. You also just looked at the % of new cases in 2010, there are still 458,000 people(unless some died) who still have thyroid cancer and now you have to add another 44,000 and minus the deaths from the 458,000. About 1 in 104 get thyroid cancer in their life.
@myndy86 Because I can not account for how many died. I used new with new plus death. Comparing the rate of growth of both population and accounted for within a year, diagnosed thyroid cancer. Moreover, the nitrates and nitrites are not major factors in developing Thyroid cancer. Radiation, Low intake of Iodine, and Genetics are the major contributors. Decreasing your intake of the nitrates and nitrites does not decrease your risk.
@burazekun The study suggests there is a decrease in thyroid cancer risk with consuming less nitrates and organic generally has about 50% less nitrates. There are other nitrate risks as well. Oral bacteria convert nitrate to nitrite, which competes with oxygen and binds to hemoglobin. Nitrates can be converted to nitrosamines(carcinogens). Nitrate at high doses can inhibit iodine uptake adversely affect the thyroid. You downplayed the thyroid cancer %, but that is just one factor.
@myndy86 But the overall, reading about Thyroid cancer, I never read how it was "affected" directly by the food you eat. But iodine, radiation, and genetics. Only when reading about nitrate levels in water did I see anything related.
@burazekun First of all, I specifically gave you a study that seperately looked at nitrate in drinking water, and nitrates in vegetables. The reason your general reading may have not turned up anything about nitrates adversely affecting thyroid cancer risk is because you are looking at information from 2008 and the other article you posted was from 2002. The study I gave you was from 2010.
@myndy86 There are two articles that bring most of the scientific community to doubt if they are directly related. This includes consumption as less is found there then drinking water. "A A Avery Infant Methemoglobemia - reexamining the role of drinking water nitrates" This matter is still in debate. We are just standing on either side of it.
@burazekun Hardly anybody in the scientific community takes Alex Avery serious. He is well known for making false claims, just like his dad Dennis Avery. He is funded by companies that produce pesticides, GE crops, etc. and has a lot to gain by making false claims in favor of conventional farming. There really isnt much of a debate unless you count biased opinions of those who get paid to make false claims, and inaccurate wikipedia articles(like most wikipedia articles).
@myndy86 You're just denying facts. I personally don't believe in small organized statistics myself. ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00517.html . No mention of cancer effects. water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/nitrate.cfm#three . No mention of cancer related effects. dnr.wi.gov/org/water/dwg/nitrate.htm. No mention of cancer. idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/NitrateFS.htm . No mention of cancer. bfhd.wa.gov/info/nitrate-nitrite.php . No mention of cancer.
@burazekun The first link(ext.colostate) only looked at digestive cancers and NHL not thyroid or any other cancers. They did mention an increased digestive cancer risk.
The second link (water.epa) states "This health effects language is not intended to catalog all possible health effects for nitrate. Rather, it is intended to inform consumers of some of the possible health effects associated with nitrate in drinking water when the rule was finalized."
@burazekun #3 link (dnr.wi.gov) "some experts believe that long-term ingestion of water high in nitrate may increase the risk of certain types of cancer." #4 link(idph.state) doesn't mention cancer. #5 link (bfhd.wa) "some health studies have suggested that exposure to high levels of nitrates could lead to some forms of cancer, but results are inconclusive" Did you even read these links? Almost ALL of them mention cancer and you said they didn't!
@myndy86 Does not decrease your risk much. In fact, increasing those intakes would only likely make you have less oxygen in your blood stream more an issue. Nitrates can react with the iron (FeO) and make it a relatively less reactive (Fe2O3). The effects are similar to an Iron based Anemia. The required quantities are great.
not sure how i got tossed in the thyroid conversation with all the delightful statistics...
Our BIGGEST issue with conventional farming is that so much of what we grow goes to livestock. Land is drained of natural organisms and supplemented with chemical fertilizer and wasted on corn, soy and livestock feed. If we grew REAL food for people on all that land (not cheap grown crap to be processed to food-like things), organic farming could be easily sustainable and feed us all.
@wendax I must have accidentally clicked on reply near your name. Honestly, I am just half replying. I do apologize. ^^ I actually agree with you, I think all those issues are the case. Corn unfortunately is a resource hog. But grows well in the USA. It's growth was one of the reasons we had the dust bowl back in the early 1900's. It's also how you re-found the process of crop rotation. But I disagree that Organic farming is sustainable worldwide. USA has a higher chance, only for us.
@burazekun How "we" re-found the process of crop rotation. lol Pesticides and nutrient farming are required to grow in certain regions of the world. The pests and lack of natural nutrients in the ground make it impossible otherwise. Sometimes it's one or the other.
@burazekun There are numerous organic alternatives to pesticides, push/pull, crop rotation, crop cover, predatory insects, lures/traps, conventionally bred pest resistant crops, etc. There are numerous examples of FAO, etc. projects in numerous countries where they significantly reduced pesticide use with organic methods. Organic methods generally increase nutrient content in soil more than conventional, maintaining or building soil quality is one of many benefits of organic.
@myndy86 I have seen how the predatory insect one has devastated the ecosystem before. Some bred pest resistant crops can cause other issues. But over all I agree. I don't call that Organic, that is the direction conventional farming should take. To make "Organic" a special name, it means they really don't do those things. Technically it can't be called Organic if they engineer a plant either. Most of those other methods are used conventionally as well. In fact they are paid to do them.
@burazekun If conventional farmers switched to using all organic mehods, then you are correct that they could still be called conventional farmers. The difference is there woud be no certification to oversee those conventional farmers. Some conventional farmers do this, however they often cut corners because they are not bound by the rules of organic, and this can be and studies have suggested that this cutting corners and not being bound by organic rules, can pose a danger.
@myndy86 There are farms that are paid not to produce food, some that are paid for the rotation of their crops. This has been in effect since the dust bowl of the early 1900's. Allot of the material they use for nitrates and nitrites are actually derived from manure and dead plant matter. This is similar to "organic" farming. However they also use enrichment supplements to increase yields. Personally I wish they didn't do that, because it does end up an issue in surrounding areas.
@burazekun Most of the farmers are not paid to rotate crops(those type of things have been greatly reduced since the 1970's) but most of the largest producers of non-food crops(like corn used for ethanol, or food additives crops used for vegetable oil, etc. that provide virtually no micronutrients, etc.) are given huge government susidies to grow these non-food crops. Organic farmers generally do not get subsidies to grow non-food crops and generally get very little subsidies at all.
@myndy86 First mention of cancer, and is stated it is in study. "nitrosamines" (C9H11N3O) Is not a nitrate in name. However one thing everyone says. Low stomach acids can make it worse. Why? Because it doesn't break down enough to become Urea (H2N)-(O)-(NH2)
@burazekun I read the articles, what you are trying to say? One thing I saw "Human overpopulation is leading to destruction of tropical forests due to widening practices of slash-and-burn and other methods of subsistence farming necessitated by famines in lesser developed countries. A sequel to the deforestation is typically large scale erosion, loss of soil nutrients and sometimes total desertification." If they were using organic methods like agroforestry this wouldn't happen!
@burazekun "Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa""findings are backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way." unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
@burazekun "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
@burazekun "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
Humans produce more than enough food to feed the entire population of the earth and a switch to organic wouldn't change that.
I agree even old-style organic farming is hard on the earth, there are other methods we should ALL explore such as permaculture, hydroponics and forest farming. "Organic" is a term we toss around, but it is still just the norm in small population groups, villages and areas supporting themselves. It's all they have, the soil is precious and they rejuvenate it. We all went backwards the last 30 years in 1st world countries.
I am in Canada, organic is sustainable here too, btw ;)
@wendax Also, I believe conventional farming can be improved. But Organic farming is not sustaining. Conventional farming could use better practice habits, but organic farming is no angel either. I believe that our biggest issues in the USA are over consumption and demand. Organic foods can not meet those demands, and conventional farms are required. The use of pesticides and nitrates and nitrites are used to increase yield for said demands. Decrease demand, decrease requirements to meet
@burazekun We produce far more food than we consume in the U.S. We also use a lot of agricultural land for uses besides food production, such as ethanol production, or use for food addiitves that do not contribute to increased micronutrients which is why there are high levels of deficiencies. Organic farming is certainly sustaining, it is conventional that is not sustaining due to the excess water use, water contamination, increased soil erosion, decreased agro-biodiversity, etc.
@myndy86 These are all good facts. However each state has their own rules in processing farm land. The federal government gives the major guidelines. Some states lean more too the farmer, which wants more output for more income. There should be better practices. I do not refute this. I am only saying that it is not a major contributor to Thyroid issues. But most corporate, or large scale Organic farms are no exception from the similar issues of conventional farms.
Alot of this stuff may be true for the US but regulations are different in Canada...and alot of the stuff here is wrong also...I have done enough reaserch to know that pesticides are bad for you. And for christ's sake..buy your organic stuff from the local market or grow it yourself.
I really don't know. I don't think organic food is extremely better for you, but I do know that when I buy organic and whole foods, they usually taste better and make me feel better. Maybe it's a psychological effect. There's no telling unless I try both diets, organic and processed, for a while and see. But I love my expensive bread, fresh deli items, and frozen veggies. Sometimes I think just not eating the cheap brands can improve one's diet significantly.
@CelestialWolven it's not a psychological effect, you're just not eating GMOs so you're not getting sick anymore, that's why it is better, no DNA damage, no toxins, better taste.
@SaveAmericaFightNWO All crops have some level of toxins in them. If farmers didn't use pesticides, organic or otherwise, foods would spoil before they even reached my shelf. Any kind of pesticide is unnatural for the human body to consume and toxic. I just make a note to buy the freshest products with the most natural ingredients when I shop. I buy very little truly organic stuff, but I think I've found a nice medium.
@CelestialWolven 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
@CelestialWolven "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 There is nothing at that link. However, at this link: consumersunion (dot) org / food / organicsumm (dot) htm. The number of organically grown samples was significantly lower than conventionally grown samples, and fewer organic samples were toxic. However, fewer samples of organic crops were tested than conventionally grown crops. This means that a lower ratio for organic is to be expected, because the number of samples of each are not equal. That's where the study is flawed.
@CelestialWolven No, thats not how statistics work. If I look at 10 organic crops and 8 had pesticides residue, thats 80%. If I look at 100 conventional samples and 79 had pesticide residue, that means even though significantly more conventional samples had residues the percentage is actually less. Sampling more crops is actually to the advantage of conventional, and they still had much more pesticide residues than organic, even with the more sample advantage.
@myndy86 Actually, yes it is. I studied biology in university, and took a graduate-level statistics course. In order for a test to be accurate in all attributes, the numbers needed in all test groups must be as close as possible in order to get the most accurate result.The larger the sample size, the more reliable its mean. The more equal the sample, the more accurate its median. This provides a more positive correlation. A 100 to 10 sample difference would be even more inaccurate.
@CelestialWolven 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 Just fyi, residual residue is what is discovered at the grocer normally. This is why you should wash your vegi's, I do so anyways because allot of them have dirt on them. Even organic can have pesticide residue. It's not like they don't use pesticides. They don't use synthetic pesticides. Nitrates are more of a scare as well. It will naturally be flushed out of of well hydrated body in the form of NH3 with no issues. Also, you links don't work. It's a gimmick. *shrugs* Oh well.
@burazekun Youtube doesn't allow links, type the quote from the study(without quotation marks) in a search engine like Google and they should come up. Pesticide residue is not completely washed off of foods, and plants can uptake pesticides which can not be washed off. 52% of organic farmers don't use any pesticides whatsover and those that do use significantly less than conventional. Organic pesticides generally degrade much easier, so there is much less chance of residue on food.
@burazekun "As in previous studies, these investigators found a positive association between nitrate exposure and bladder cancer. Unexpectedly, they also found a positive association for ovarian cancer." niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/sep/2001/nitrate/
"Increasing intake of dietary nitrate was associated with an increased risk of thyroid cancer (highest vs. lowest quartile, RR = 2.9 [1.0–8.1]; P for trend = 0.046)" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879161/
@myndy86 This is all based on water based nitrates. This is a serious issue. It's common for nitrates to be used in grass based plants because of how it helps create an explosive growth. This can over saturate water in run off, and without heat or electricity, it'll stay saturated if not filtered out. Also true that not all of the pesticides wash off. But the trace amounts that remain really don't cause issues. Some of the organic pesticides can be dangerous to human consumption if left
@burazekun As was stated in earlier studies, the levels of organophosphates, etc. found in most people are likely caused primarily through dietary exposure. These same levels have been attributed to various ailments. So, the level of pesticide residue found in non-organic food can indeed cause or contribute to adverse health affects. Organic farmers use significantly less pesticides and most use none, so there is much less risk of pesticide residue on organic food.
@burazekun As was stated in earlier studies, the levels of organophosphates, etc. found in most people are likely caused primarily through dietary exposure. These same levels have been attributed to various ailments. So, the level of pesticide residue found in non-organic food can indeed cause or contribute to adverse health affects. Organic farmers use significantly less pesticides and most use none, so there is much less risk of pesticide residue on organic food.
@burazekun As studies I posted mentioned, the levels of organophosphates, etc. in most people are likely caused primarily through dietary exposure. At those same levels studies suggest adverse health affects occur, so pesticide residue on non-organic food may cause or contribute to adverse health affects, especially in children and pregnant women. Most organic farms use no pesticides and those that do use significantly less than conventional so the pesticide risk is greatly reduced.
@myndy86 48% of the farms that use pesticides does not qualify 52% as a majority being barely over half. What you are saying there is that you have nearly a 50/50 chance of getting a pesticide in your organic food. However heres something to read. ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organics.doc Apparently there are more like this too. The pesticides used on organic farms can include the same pesticides as normal, but have been given permission to use less. epa.gov/agriculture/torg.html
@burazekun 52% is the majority, especially in comparison to the amount of conventional farmers that use pesticides. Also organic doesn't use any herbicides(other than vinegar) compared to the huge majority of conventional farmers. The reality is that organic uses significantly less pesticides and therefore any health, environmental, etc. issues with pesticides are greatly reduced by organic food/farming. Also, nitrates from food(vegetables) was compared in the thyroid cancer study.
@myndy86 I apologize, I use the two thirds majority basis. Some places use the three fifths majority basis. Though the definition "over 50%" can be used. I just find to many unhappy people if that was the case. It's semantics. Also, animal fertilizer generally has allot of nitrates too as well as decaying plant matter. Both of which I use in my gardens. But like I said, you don't know what you can get. You have a extreme low, a mean, and a high. You can't say "all is equal" to clarify.
@burazekun I wouldn't argue that all is equal, but some foods have a higher average nitrate level, and in general organic fertilizers like manure, plant matter, etc. would be absorbed more slowly, both reducing the nitrate/nitrite levels in the crops grown in that soil and a reduction of nitrates/nitrites leeching into groundwater, or in runoff, etc. Also, if organically fed animal's manure, organically grown plants, etc. are used the soil is likely to contian less nitrates/nitrites.
@myndy86 I can't refute anything said here. But normally the nitrate and nitrite volumes are not dangerous. But even a 0.01% chance higher is still a higher chance. That I wont argue, normally this is not an issue. However, genetics being so vague to people, some people may be worse off then others, including those with histories of such things like thyroid issues. Also, "organically" fed animals are not significantly lower in nitrates and nitrites. But even a 0.01% is still better.
@burazekun The studies suggest there is as much as 50% less nitrates in organic vegetables, so the risk of thyroid cancer would likely be reduced 50% more than the conventional eaters risk. Also, if organically fed animals are consuming plant matter that has 50% less nitrates. then it is reasonable to assume they will have less nitrates as well(unless nitrates are added during processing, etc.). Also, their manure(composed of plant matter) would also likely contain less nitrates.
@burazekun The overall benefit is far greater than 0.01%. If we look at pesticides which can have a cumulative body burden, especially for children, then even if organic food had 0.01ppm less pesticides per food, over the course of a day, year, etc. that adds up to a huge difference. Also, the huge majority of studies suggest organic has higher levels of certain nutrients and/or healthier(organically fed animals lived longer, had better reproduction, etc.), which is another benefit.
@myndy86 The use of 0.01% was a example. It was used as "any" amount can be viewed as a benefit. Also 50% off the original risk is how you should apply that. However individual bodies process things differently. You may be able to use that as a mean, but it can't apply to everyone, including with highs and lows in the organic industry. Also, apple rinds don't break down well in the intestine, I always peel them. ^^ Also I boil and bake them. Same with many fruits and vegi's. More flavor
@burazekun I'm not intending to say everyone will have the same advantage or that all organic foods are equal, but on average people who regularly eat organic will have a 50% reduced risk of thyroid cancer compared to the risk for conventional eaters(original risk). There will be on average a reduction of pesticide residues, on average increase of certain nutrients, and on average increased health benefits from the reduced pesticide residues and increased nutrients, etc.
@myndy86 Many in the US eat to much as is. Nutrients are something we intake on a fairly frequent basis. As for the chance for thyroid cancer or other related issues in regards to pesticides, nitrides, and nitrates, are relatively small in the global scheme of things. The number of people who have thyroid cancer are:
458,000
101,000 males
357,000 females
The population of the US is over 307,006,550, both samples of Americans. That actually is 0.0015% of the population has it. ^^
@burazekun If we look at one of the most recent studies, the French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA) report, which suggests "organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals (Fe, Mg)", which is consistent with most other studies. Then look at the % of Americans who do not get the recommended amounts of the nutrients(34.3% Fe, 68% Mg) ars.usda.gov/services/docs"dot"htm?docid=11046
Obviously, organic would have a nutritional and health impact on those deficient Americans.
@burazekun Those stats are from 2008. In 2010 alone more than 44,000 people were diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer is also the fastest growing cancer in women in the U.S. Also, I think you did the math wrong, even with those stats I get over 0.1% have thyroid cancer. The U.S. isn't global and if you add up all the stats for illnesses, etc. caused or contributed to by pesticides, nitrites and nitrates it is significant. That doesn't include environmental impact.
@burazekun "Based on rates from 2006-2008, 0.97% of men and women born today will be diagnosed with cancer of the thyroid at some time during their lifetime. This number can also be expressed as 1 in 104 men and women will be diagnosed with cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime." seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/thyro.html
@myndy86 That effectively means that you have a 0.0015% chance of getting thyroid cancer. And that is not severely enough, impacted by the content of your food. ^^ There are far worse ways to increase those chances to get Thyroid Cancer. So yeah, my 0.01% statement was actually less accurate because I was too optimistic. ^^ Even if it was an analogy to point out any improvement is a good one. Just so you know, some of those people eat Organic foods. Didn't help them.
@myndy86 That argument I can see. However I still find that instead of spending 100 more a week for a small improvement. I am better off taking larger contenders like many preservative out of the diet instead. I normally don't cook with the exception of left overs after all.
@burazekun If you are not cooking your conventional food then you are likely still consuming most of the pesticide residue. "None of the pesticide residues was significantly reduced when the apples were subject to simple washing or coring." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14668155
To reduce pesticide residue you would have to peel, juice, store, or boil apples, and even then you still may be consuming as much as 25% or more of the original pesticide residue on the apple.
@myndy86 Could the industry do better? I am going to say yes. But I don't think that organic is exactly the way. Organic industry varies to greatly in how they handle they products.
"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
@CelestialWolven "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 Also the ncbi article doesn't state what else the children ate. Like process foods? It's true that a good home cooked, non-preservative based diet is better for you. That includes organic items. When working in organic industry, you limit yourself to making most your own food. Meaning that canned goods, and many prepackaged items are no longer an issue of concern. Also 25 kids? I would like to see a larger study, but it's a start. Monitor before and after. >< Not just during.
@burazekun I over spoke, apparently the entire page didn't load. However knowing prior dietary intake can seriously impact this study. Switching out from organic to preservative free can also impact the study positively.
So it's smart to buy foods grown in massive, unsanitary factories that create monopolies in the food industry than local farmers who grow their foods without preservatives and other junk?
mmhhh...I don't think that either side had very good arguments to be honest ;-) A lot of organic stuff still needs to be treated. The only way you can live relatively healthy is if you grow it yourself. I don't eat meat because of what they are doing to the animals (even organic) and I don't think it's healthy to stuff yourself with meat al the time. But to tell people that pesticides are not harmful for humans is absolute garbage!!I only believe that if I see this guy drinking a bottle of it..
@thegreenjudy nope.. organic stuff does NOT need treated, fuck you, fuck that! go fuck your own food up. I don't meat either, but I do not want organic food "treated" with whatever YOU would want it treated with? I'm not sure what you meant by treating...
@SaveAmericaFightNWO Calm down and educate yourself - google organic pesticides.
Of course they treat organic food - do you think the bugs stay away from veg that's grown organically?They just use different stuff but it's not necessarily better for us. If you want mainly untreated veg grow your own - but mind those slugs ;-)
Well, this is just about the most pathetic show of money-hungry propaganda I have EVER seen! And that shit is everywhere! Did they ever show any real evidence to what they were saying?? Ten minutes of research will show anyone who can read plenty of evidence showing the nutritional benefits of eating pesticide-free food! Not that I ever considered myself a fan of these wierdos, but after watching this, penn and teller can kiss my tree-huggin, organic food-lovin ass!
Industries who stand to gain from fossil fuels, petrochemicals, industrial waste and illness have endless funds to misinform the public. There is no money in healthy thinking humans.
Look up the sideeffects of GMO and Monsanto's ties to the FDA. After progressive dietary problems, I saw a GMO labrat study that was uncannily familiar to my symptoms. As an experiment, I cut out the GMO and petrochemicals. 3 days was all it took for my system to fix itself. I owe my life to real food. Stay Healthy.
kimhunter2 1 day ago
Look up the video "My Potato Project; The Importance of 'Organic.'" Have at it. This child proves Penn and Teller's 10 minute B.S. wrong in 3 minutes.
Jakyle1 2 days ago
However, I wonder where they got all their 'facts' and 'figures' from? How do we know they're telling the truth about the percentage of organic food coming from China? How do we know organic food is any 'less organic' than North American o. food? They are driving the viewer into making assumptions... much as the other side does.
It makes me distrustful and suspect of all of them. lol
kipasa100 3 days ago
I have this exact argument with myself all the time. Growing food without pesticides is very difficult. I've tried. But I do think pesticide free (organic or not) is less challenging and less toxic to our systems and our planet. I don't buy organic all the time simply because I know that organic pesticides can be just as, or more, toxic than conventional pesticides. I also know conventional food is subsidized and so I can get it cheaper... which makes a difference in this economic climate.
kipasa100 3 days ago
Massive production of food is polluting the world and destroying the biodiversity. Everybody should grown their own food and produce their own energy
xmenprince 3 days ago
Fuck monsanto and anything that has to do with... learn about GMO foods people, learn about toxins put in the water, dangers of vaccines...
and fuck Penn and Teller ...
FenixF03 4 days ago
Saw these knuckleheads in LA in '82. They put on a great "magic show". Now, BS specialists—yes, I believe so.
xaccordionista 5 days ago
fucking Penn and Teller love to slurp up the corporate whorish "Institutes" who's whole existence is to support their agro-chemical benefactors and create "controversial" shows for ratings.
duesiswild 5 days ago
@duesiswild Fuck Penn and Teller. Grow your own food.
Barklord 4 days ago
As long as they don't take away my tacos.....I'm happy
DetJohnKimbel 5 days ago
@DetJohnKimbel GMO corn is one of the worst. Produce with the first number "4" is conventional sprayed food (no DNA mutation like GMO) "9" is organic, and "8" is GMO. GMO causes DNA mutations, sterility, disease, etc. Heavily processed foods usually contain GMO corn derivatives
kimhunter2 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Then again, after seeing their Carl Junior's ad - I mean "fast food is good for you" episode "
Well, you clearly didn't watch it. Because no matter how many times you science-hating authoritarian dipshits insist upon it, nowhere in the episode is the claim that "fats food is healthy" made. But you've made it quite clear you're a peon who needs to hide behind circumstantial ad hominem and straw men to wish away any opposition to your dogmatic beliefs.
NiceGuyCody 6 days ago
I love Pen and Teller and I agree with everything they generally say, however, I do not trust what people tell me. I take it in to account but when i see the shit they spray on crops I decided to go organic...Not completely but generally. A lot of stuff in Tesco now is pretty much the same price so why not? I dont trust the organic industry and I do not trust these institutes which rate food and do tests. Odds are both are funded by something corrupt or untrust worthy. I make my own mind up!
sy2pie 1 week ago
"people don't understand how the synthetic pesticides have gotten safer"
nerdyharry 1 week ago
USDA organic is a joke, get state or local organic certified. Buy local.
Of course getting USDA organic food at Walmart is bullshit. It's not real organic.
zOMGLaserGunzPewPew 1 week ago
If there was a time when people used Agent Orange on crops.. then what's to say we are fully informed about todays herbicides and pesticides?
Fucking morons don't learn from history.
zOMGLaserGunzPewPew 1 week ago
this is fucking sad, i guess penn and teller sold out or brought out to make this shit-ass episode.
everyone knows that conventionally grown food is less nutritious, and i wonder how MORE dangerous is organic farming's pesticides are, really.
galerouth 1 week ago
@galerouth
"everyone knows that conventionally grown food is less nutritious"
Fun fact: Sticking "Everybdy knows" as a prefix to a flagrant lie does not make it true.
NiceGuyCody 6 days ago
@NiceGuyCody Fun fact: Saying Monsanto said so, doesn't make it true.
myndy86 6 days ago
Buy from your fucking local farming who cares if it is labeled "organic". Ever hear of a CSA? Fuck these guys even though they have a point about some buyers the people that care about the environment want to know exactly where their food comes from and the effect on the environment.
SH1THEAD4000 1 week ago
They have ignored other benefits like increased biodiversity in and above ground (if it's not monocultured) and the amount of toxins in our body which may not cause cancer but have been shown to have effects on infants and children's brain function (GMOs + glyphosphate). They really fucked this one up bad. Just gives people more misinformation thank you Penn and Teller.
SH1THEAD4000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SH1THEAD4000
"amount of toxins in our body which may not cause cancer but have been shown to have effects on infants and children's brain function "
No, you're just regurgitating propaganda and misnformation. "Toxins" is hippie babble, not science. Do you also believe vaccinations cause autism?
NiceGuyCody 6 days ago
Watch this, it shows how P&T are flat out wrong on this subject:
wimp.com/realfood/
MrCromstantinople 1 week ago
What they don't tell us is that big agriculture is subsidized by US taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars. So to say that organic food is expensive is to deny just how much we all spend GMO corn and soy and everything else. On top of that, GMO food have synthetic proteins that have been shown to increase food allergies across the board. Sorry Penn and Teller, I call bullshit on your bullshit.
MrCromstantinople 1 week ago
@MrCromstantinople
Subsidies have nothing to do with organics higher pices, and P&T oppose government subsidies anyway.
" On top of that, GMO food have synthetic proteins that have been shown to increase food allergies across the board"
You're a damn liar.
NiceGuyCody 6 days ago
@NiceGuyCody Subsidies create artificial lower prices of conventional foods which give the appearance of higher prices of organic. So once again your argument is just based on your uneducated opinion. Who cares if P&T oppose government subsidies anyway, mostly conventional farmers get government subsidies and government subsidies are a major contributing factor in third world poverty.
myndy86 6 days ago
that lady need s more fashionable maternity clothes:)
casablanca4381 1 week ago
hahahaha I love when people who know nothing about toxicology start spewing from the mouth. Most Organic pesticides are far more toxic than any of the synthetics being produced today.
rjsinca 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rjsinca "hahahaha I love when people who know nothing about toxicology start spewing from the mouth." Most Organic pesticides are NOT more toxic than most of the synthetics being produced today. 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and those that do generally use significantly less than conventional farmers. For example, the most used herbicide in organic is vinegar, the most used herbicide in conventional is glyphosate. Provide evidence vinegar is "far more toxic"!
myndy86 1 week ago
@rjsinca “Glyphosate (G) is the largest selling herbicide worldwide; the most common formulations (Roundup, R) contain polyoxyethyleneamine as main surfactant. Recent findings indicate that G exposure may cause DNA damage and cancer in humans.””we found genotoxic effects after short exposure to concentrations that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331240
myndy86 1 week ago
@rjsinca "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 1 week ago
@rjsinca "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 week ago
@myndy86
Please stop spamming Chick Tracts.
NiceGuyCody 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NiceGuyCody The only person spamming here is you! I have been providing studies by independent scientists from Universities who get government grants and therefore do not have a financial conflict of interest or independent UN researchers, etc. that counter your arguments in numerous video comments on youtube. You have mostly provided your own opinion, which you haven't backed with much of by anything other than what Monsanto told you.
myndy86 6 days ago
@rjsinca “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 week ago
@rjsinca “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 week ago
@rjsinca “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 week ago
@rjsinca “we tested 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. We show that from 1 to 48h of Roundup exposure Leydig cells are damaged. Within 24-48h this formulation is also toxic on the other cells""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 week ago
@rjsinca “These findings suggest that in utero and lactational exposure to glyphosate-Roundup may induce significant adverse effects on the reproductive system of male Wistar rats at puberty and during adulthood.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17634926
“maternal exposure to glyphosate disturbed the masculinization process and promoted behavioral changes and histological and endocrine problems in reproductive parameters.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22120950
myndy86 1 week ago
@rjsinca “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 week ago
@rjsinca “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 week ago
Unless you grow your own garden you don't know what the hell you're eating. We have to take the risk, it kills bugs but it's ok for you though....
Charley151 2 weeks ago
The Hudson Institute is a political wing think tank with an emphasis on military and defense. Says so right on their website. Way to pick an unbiased champion, Penn and Teller.
Then again, after seeing their Carl Junior's ad - I mean "fast food is good for you" episode - you realize just how well this show is named.
GalaxyPedlar 2 weeks ago 11
I have an idea for a TV show: We will grab the most outrageous example of an option that disagrees with us and we will back it up with a couple of guys wearing suits…
.
mogem 2 weeks ago
The people who protested for to the government to force farmers to spray pesticides are the same type of people who complain about those chemicals being on our food. Make up your mind you Progressive nut job.
THERepublic1971 3 weeks ago
The couple is not stupid. Just brainwashed and misinformed.
PiscesGal 3 weeks ago 5
@PiscesGal You mean "brainwashed and misinformed" by Penn and Teller and the biased and/or unqualified anti-organic so called "scientists" like Alex Avery and Ronald Bailey right?
myndy86 3 weeks ago
@myndy86
No, pretty sure he means like the science-hating NaturalNews-fed diarhea you've been spraying everywhere.
NiceGuyCody 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NiceGuyCody I don't get information from natural news, I get information from independent scientists from Universities who get government grants and therefore do not have a financial conflict of interest or independent UN researchers, etc., but I'm pretty sure you mean the science-hating Monsanto diarhea you've been spraying everywhere.
myndy86 6 days ago
Fuck organic foods. I'll eat what's good and what's there. I'll eat organic, but only it's because I like it not because it's "healthier" or because "it will pull me closer to nature."
PiscesGal 3 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Isn't ironic that people who think are being better to the environment by eating organic food or driving a Prius are actually doing more damage than a person who eats only meat and drives a Land Rover Discovery
muttley299 3 weeks ago
Isn't ironic that people who think are being better to the environment by eating organic food or driving a Prius are actually doing more damage than a person who eats only meat and drives a Land Rover Discovery
muttley299 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muttley299 Isn't it ironic that those who believe people, "eating organic food or driving a Prius are actually doing more damage than a person who eats only meat and drives a Land Rover Discovery" are the same people who believe magicians(who get paid to trick you)?
myndy86 3 weeks ago
Organic food is healthier. It's so freaking expensive that I can't afford to eat as much as I used to, and thus, I eat less.
gameragodzilla 3 weeks ago
In fact, most of the useful research today comes from (shocker) big corporations looking to make money. Monsanto can come up with a ton of scientifically valid evidence that debunks all of the bullshit myths about organic food, but you won't accept it because it is coming from monsanto. I'm guessing you will only accept science if it is science that you like and produced by scientifically inept organizations like greenpeace or PETA.
supersmashbros011 3 weeks ago
@supersmashbros011 Most useful research comes from independent scientists from Universities who get government grants and therefore do not have a financial conflict of interest or independent UN researchers, etc.. Companies cut corners on research to save money because they are trying to make as much profit as possible with the least expense. Can you give examples of what you mean by "myths about organic food" and provide Monsanto studies that "debunks" them.
myndy86 3 weeks ago
@myndy86
"Most useful research comes from independent scientists from Universities who get government grants and therefore do not have a financial conflict of interest or independent UN researchers, etc.. "
Translation: Science only counts when it conforms to MY political confirmation bias.
NiceGuyCody 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NiceGuyCody No, science counts when it is done by independent scientists from Universities who get government grants and therefore do not have a financial conflict of interest or independent UN researchers, etc. Obviously you are projecting, which is why you believe Monsanto and other companies like them come to conclusions that aren't biased, because those conclusions conform to YOUR political confirmation bias.
myndy86 6 days ago
There were many more reasons for organic food being bullshit than then you "might mean you’re getting your food from giant corporations or China" listed in this episode. Just because you don't like corporations doesn't mean that the research produced by monsanto isn't valid.
supersmashbros011 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think this kid knows more about "organic" than you do...
Click like to keep it up!
/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=exBEFCiWyW0
TrueWealth108 3 weeks ago
i grow my own shit so i dont have to worry about fuking nothing :D
jasonwins7 4 weeks ago
Seriously entertaining, feels like I'm watching an SNL skit. Love the fact that Penn and Teller are owned by such "think tanks" as The Hudson Institute. Hmmm... let's just take a look at a FACT: The Hudson Institute is supported by donations from: let's take a look shall we ... Eli Lilly and Company, Monsanto Company, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra, Cargill, and Procter & Gamble... Gee wiz, I guess I can see why these guys choose this kind of propaganda!
Alizzie7 4 weeks ago
Only thing this vid makes me wonder is how much money "Penn & Teller" got for this advertizement. Strategy behind the message is obvious with an odd looking pro Organic Couple vs. suite wearing "experts". Only thing video achieves is convincing the dumb to keep eating poisoned food and support the system built around it. This way everyone wins, Hospitals/Doctors keep making $ on the ill, drug companies keep getting sick people to further poison, and the cycle keeps going.. Love it.. Thx!
segosi 4 weeks ago
Penn and Teller can eat a fucking dick. Fucking pricks. Organics cost more because big food with all their cancer causing agents are over produced and over processed... Organics doesn't have to do with natural over unnatural. This whole piece is the fucking rimming of big food and big pharma. We should all be growing our OWN food in our own yards be people are goddamn lazy. Fuckers.
latitude53PT 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@latitude53PT
" We should all be growing our OWN food in our own yards"
Especially the handicapped, elderly and people who have no access to fertile land, right? Misinformed, self-righteous pieces of shit like you are what gave us Lysenkoism.
NiceGuyCody 6 days ago
Problems with all this: Monsanto owns government. Government and business controls media and spin. Corporation's dollars sponsors scientists who are careful what they study and what the results are. And so on and so on.
Look closer at the 2 styles of farming and try to convince yourself conventional is somehow better in ANY way for our health, the environment, the animals or the planet. Impossible.
wendax 1 month ago
@wendax There are 12,000 born every day in the USA. 6,000 deaths every day. Also the math provided (458,000/307,006,550) You're not taking into account variables either. And yes, I took a 2008. So if 44,000 were diagnosed (44,000/(4015000-2190000)) based on new lives. So based on that math, in 2010 for that year. It is a 0.024%. But this is based on new life and death, and not current population. A variable is genetic disposition. There are greater ties to such a thing.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun Your math is wrong you have to times that by 100 to get a %. 10% of 100 is 10 but 10/100 is 0.1, that doesn't mean its 0.1%. Like I said it is over 0.1% and you are not taking into account lifetime occurrence. You also just looked at the % of new cases in 2010, there are still 458,000 people(unless some died) who still have thyroid cancer and now you have to add another 44,000 and minus the deaths from the 458,000. About 1 in 104 get thyroid cancer in their life.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Because I can not account for how many died. I used new with new plus death. Comparing the rate of growth of both population and accounted for within a year, diagnosed thyroid cancer. Moreover, the nitrates and nitrites are not major factors in developing Thyroid cancer. Radiation, Low intake of Iodine, and Genetics are the major contributors. Decreasing your intake of the nitrates and nitrites does not decrease your risk.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun The study suggests there is a decrease in thyroid cancer risk with consuming less nitrates and organic generally has about 50% less nitrates. There are other nitrate risks as well. Oral bacteria convert nitrate to nitrite, which competes with oxygen and binds to hemoglobin. Nitrates can be converted to nitrosamines(carcinogens). Nitrate at high doses can inhibit iodine uptake adversely affect the thyroid. You downplayed the thyroid cancer %, but that is just one factor.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 But the overall, reading about Thyroid cancer, I never read how it was "affected" directly by the food you eat. But iodine, radiation, and genetics. Only when reading about nitrate levels in water did I see anything related.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun First of all, I specifically gave you a study that seperately looked at nitrate in drinking water, and nitrates in vegetables. The reason your general reading may have not turned up anything about nitrates adversely affecting thyroid cancer risk is because you are looking at information from 2008 and the other article you posted was from 2002. The study I gave you was from 2010.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 There are two articles that bring most of the scientific community to doubt if they are directly related. This includes consumption as less is found there then drinking water. "A A Avery Infant Methemoglobemia - reexamining the role of drinking water nitrates" This matter is still in debate. We are just standing on either side of it.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun Hardly anybody in the scientific community takes Alex Avery serious. He is well known for making false claims, just like his dad Dennis Avery. He is funded by companies that produce pesticides, GE crops, etc. and has a lot to gain by making false claims in favor of conventional farming. There really isnt much of a debate unless you count biased opinions of those who get paid to make false claims, and inaccurate wikipedia articles(like most wikipedia articles).
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 You're just denying facts. I personally don't believe in small organized statistics myself. ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00517.html . No mention of cancer effects. water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/nitrate.cfm#three . No mention of cancer related effects. dnr.wi.gov/org/water/dwg/nitrate.htm. No mention of cancer. idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/NitrateFS.htm . No mention of cancer. bfhd.wa.gov/info/nitrate-nitrite.php . No mention of cancer.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun The first link(ext.colostate) only looked at digestive cancers and NHL not thyroid or any other cancers. They did mention an increased digestive cancer risk.
The second link (water.epa) states "This health effects language is not intended to catalog all possible health effects for nitrate. Rather, it is intended to inform consumers of some of the possible health effects associated with nitrate in drinking water when the rule was finalized."
myndy86 1 month ago
@burazekun #3 link (dnr.wi.gov) "some experts believe that long-term ingestion of water high in nitrate may increase the risk of certain types of cancer." #4 link(idph.state) doesn't mention cancer. #5 link (bfhd.wa) "some health studies have suggested that exposure to high levels of nitrates could lead to some forms of cancer, but results are inconclusive" Did you even read these links? Almost ALL of them mention cancer and you said they didn't!
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Does not decrease your risk much. In fact, increasing those intakes would only likely make you have less oxygen in your blood stream more an issue. Nitrates can react with the iron (FeO) and make it a relatively less reactive (Fe2O3). The effects are similar to an Iron based Anemia. The required quantities are great.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun
not sure how i got tossed in the thyroid conversation with all the delightful statistics...
Our BIGGEST issue with conventional farming is that so much of what we grow goes to livestock. Land is drained of natural organisms and supplemented with chemical fertilizer and wasted on corn, soy and livestock feed. If we grew REAL food for people on all that land (not cheap grown crap to be processed to food-like things), organic farming could be easily sustainable and feed us all.
wendax 1 month ago
@wendax I must have accidentally clicked on reply near your name. Honestly, I am just half replying. I do apologize. ^^ I actually agree with you, I think all those issues are the case. Corn unfortunately is a resource hog. But grows well in the USA. It's growth was one of the reasons we had the dust bowl back in the early 1900's. It's also how you re-found the process of crop rotation. But I disagree that Organic farming is sustainable worldwide. USA has a higher chance, only for us.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun How "we" re-found the process of crop rotation. lol Pesticides and nutrient farming are required to grow in certain regions of the world. The pests and lack of natural nutrients in the ground make it impossible otherwise. Sometimes it's one or the other.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun There are numerous organic alternatives to pesticides, push/pull, crop rotation, crop cover, predatory insects, lures/traps, conventionally bred pest resistant crops, etc. There are numerous examples of FAO, etc. projects in numerous countries where they significantly reduced pesticide use with organic methods. Organic methods generally increase nutrient content in soil more than conventional, maintaining or building soil quality is one of many benefits of organic.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 I have seen how the predatory insect one has devastated the ecosystem before. Some bred pest resistant crops can cause other issues. But over all I agree. I don't call that Organic, that is the direction conventional farming should take. To make "Organic" a special name, it means they really don't do those things. Technically it can't be called Organic if they engineer a plant either. Most of those other methods are used conventionally as well. In fact they are paid to do them.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun If conventional farmers switched to using all organic mehods, then you are correct that they could still be called conventional farmers. The difference is there woud be no certification to oversee those conventional farmers. Some conventional farmers do this, however they often cut corners because they are not bound by the rules of organic, and this can be and studies have suggested that this cutting corners and not being bound by organic rules, can pose a danger.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 There are farms that are paid not to produce food, some that are paid for the rotation of their crops. This has been in effect since the dust bowl of the early 1900's. Allot of the material they use for nitrates and nitrites are actually derived from manure and dead plant matter. This is similar to "organic" farming. However they also use enrichment supplements to increase yields. Personally I wish they didn't do that, because it does end up an issue in surrounding areas.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun Most of the farmers are not paid to rotate crops(those type of things have been greatly reduced since the 1970's) but most of the largest producers of non-food crops(like corn used for ethanol, or food additives crops used for vegetable oil, etc. that provide virtually no micronutrients, etc.) are given huge government susidies to grow these non-food crops. Organic farmers generally do not get subsidies to grow non-food crops and generally get very little subsidies at all.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 First mention of cancer, and is stated it is in study. "nitrosamines" (C9H11N3O) Is not a nitrate in name. However one thing everyone says. Low stomach acids can make it worse. Why? Because it doesn't break down enough to become Urea (H2N)-(O)-(NH2)
burazekun 1 month ago
@myndy86 Look up Soil Conservation on wiki. Also Natural Resources Conservation Service.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun I read the articles, what you are trying to say? One thing I saw "Human overpopulation is leading to destruction of tropical forests due to widening practices of slash-and-burn and other methods of subsistence farming necessitated by famines in lesser developed countries. A sequel to the deforestation is typically large scale erosion, loss of soil nutrients and sometimes total desertification." If they were using organic methods like agroforestry this wouldn't happen!
myndy86 1 month ago
@burazekun "Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa""findings are backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way." unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
myndy86 1 month ago
@burazekun "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
myndy86 1 month ago
@burazekun "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
Humans produce more than enough food to feed the entire population of the earth and a switch to organic wouldn't change that.
myndy86 1 month ago
@burazekun
I agree even old-style organic farming is hard on the earth, there are other methods we should ALL explore such as permaculture, hydroponics and forest farming. "Organic" is a term we toss around, but it is still just the norm in small population groups, villages and areas supporting themselves. It's all they have, the soil is precious and they rejuvenate it. We all went backwards the last 30 years in 1st world countries.
I am in Canada, organic is sustainable here too, btw ;)
wendax 1 month ago
@wendax thyca.org/knowabout.htm
burazekun 1 month ago
@wendax Also, I believe conventional farming can be improved. But Organic farming is not sustaining. Conventional farming could use better practice habits, but organic farming is no angel either. I believe that our biggest issues in the USA are over consumption and demand. Organic foods can not meet those demands, and conventional farms are required. The use of pesticides and nitrates and nitrites are used to increase yield for said demands. Decrease demand, decrease requirements to meet
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun We produce far more food than we consume in the U.S. We also use a lot of agricultural land for uses besides food production, such as ethanol production, or use for food addiitves that do not contribute to increased micronutrients which is why there are high levels of deficiencies. Organic farming is certainly sustaining, it is conventional that is not sustaining due to the excess water use, water contamination, increased soil erosion, decreased agro-biodiversity, etc.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 These are all good facts. However each state has their own rules in processing farm land. The federal government gives the major guidelines. Some states lean more too the farmer, which wants more output for more income. There should be better practices. I do not refute this. I am only saying that it is not a major contributor to Thyroid issues. But most corporate, or large scale Organic farms are no exception from the similar issues of conventional farms.
burazekun 1 month ago
Alot of this stuff may be true for the US but regulations are different in Canada...and alot of the stuff here is wrong also...I have done enough reaserch to know that pesticides are bad for you. And for christ's sake..buy your organic stuff from the local market or grow it yourself.
mndud 1 month ago
@mndud Agreed, I find that farmers market "organic" was actually pretty good tasting stuff around my area. ^^ It's also cheaper then a grocer.
burazekun 1 month ago
A Kid getting a MOAB in MW3 is the coolest thing ever right now, actually.
joestudio901 1 month ago
lol i was eating an organic banana while watching this
lethalkittens 1 month ago
Wow, just lost total respect for P & T.
ElfPrincessHarley 1 month ago
penn and teller might be the dumbest people on the planet
crish09r 1 month ago
Are these guys paid by Fox?
mondosweetie 1 month ago
@mondosweetie well no...there are actually alot of Libertarians on FOX
TheJasonDR 1 month ago
All those old pics of pie eating contest - guess what? That was ORGANIC food then. But your grandparents just called it FOOD.
ExceptTin 1 month ago 12
@SaveAmericaFightNWO has no life.
superclaydude 1 month ago
All the food I eat is organic. I can't digest rocks and metals.
AvengerXP 1 month ago
Comment removed
SaveAmericaFightNWO 1 month ago
FAT?? does not make 3 year old baby girls to have their period! this is complete BS!
SaveAmericaFightNWO 1 month ago
I really don't know. I don't think organic food is extremely better for you, but I do know that when I buy organic and whole foods, they usually taste better and make me feel better. Maybe it's a psychological effect. There's no telling unless I try both diets, organic and processed, for a while and see. But I love my expensive bread, fresh deli items, and frozen veggies. Sometimes I think just not eating the cheap brands can improve one's diet significantly.
CelestialWolven 1 month ago
@CelestialWolven it's not a psychological effect, you're just not eating GMOs so you're not getting sick anymore, that's why it is better, no DNA damage, no toxins, better taste.
SaveAmericaFightNWO 1 month ago
@SaveAmericaFightNWO All crops have some level of toxins in them. If farmers didn't use pesticides, organic or otherwise, foods would spoil before they even reached my shelf. Any kind of pesticide is unnatural for the human body to consume and toxic. I just make a note to buy the freshest products with the most natural ingredients when I shop. I buy very little truly organic stuff, but I think I've found a nice medium.
CelestialWolven 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CelestialWolven 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 2
@CelestialWolven "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 2
Comment removed
CelestialWolven 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myndy86 There is nothing at that link. However, at this link: consumersunion (dot) org / food / organicsumm (dot) htm. The number of organically grown samples was significantly lower than conventionally grown samples, and fewer organic samples were toxic. However, fewer samples of organic crops were tested than conventionally grown crops. This means that a lower ratio for organic is to be expected, because the number of samples of each are not equal. That's where the study is flawed.
CelestialWolven 1 month ago
@CelestialWolven No, thats not how statistics work. If I look at 10 organic crops and 8 had pesticides residue, thats 80%. If I look at 100 conventional samples and 79 had pesticide residue, that means even though significantly more conventional samples had residues the percentage is actually less. Sampling more crops is actually to the advantage of conventional, and they still had much more pesticide residues than organic, even with the more sample advantage.
myndy86 1 month ago 3
Comment removed
CelestialWolven 1 month ago
Comment removed
CelestialWolven 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myndy86 Actually, yes it is. I studied biology in university, and took a graduate-level statistics course. In order for a test to be accurate in all attributes, the numbers needed in all test groups must be as close as possible in order to get the most accurate result.The larger the sample size, the more reliable its mean. The more equal the sample, the more accurate its median. This provides a more positive correlation. A 100 to 10 sample difference would be even more inaccurate.
CelestialWolven 1 month ago
@CelestialWolven 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 2
@myndy86 Just fyi, residual residue is what is discovered at the grocer normally. This is why you should wash your vegi's, I do so anyways because allot of them have dirt on them. Even organic can have pesticide residue. It's not like they don't use pesticides. They don't use synthetic pesticides. Nitrates are more of a scare as well. It will naturally be flushed out of of well hydrated body in the form of NH3 with no issues. Also, you links don't work. It's a gimmick. *shrugs* Oh well.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun Youtube doesn't allow links, type the quote from the study(without quotation marks) in a search engine like Google and they should come up. Pesticide residue is not completely washed off of foods, and plants can uptake pesticides which can not be washed off. 52% of organic farmers don't use any pesticides whatsover and those that do use significantly less than conventional. Organic pesticides generally degrade much easier, so there is much less chance of residue on food.
myndy86 1 month ago
@burazekun "As in previous studies, these investigators found a positive association between nitrate exposure and bladder cancer. Unexpectedly, they also found a positive association for ovarian cancer." niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/sep/2001/nitrate/
"Increasing intake of dietary nitrate was associated with an increased risk of thyroid cancer (highest vs. lowest quartile, RR = 2.9 [1.0–8.1]; P for trend = 0.046)" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879161/
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 This is all based on water based nitrates. This is a serious issue. It's common for nitrates to be used in grass based plants because of how it helps create an explosive growth. This can over saturate water in run off, and without heat or electricity, it'll stay saturated if not filtered out. Also true that not all of the pesticides wash off. But the trace amounts that remain really don't cause issues. Some of the organic pesticides can be dangerous to human consumption if left
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun As was stated in earlier studies, the levels of organophosphates, etc. found in most people are likely caused primarily through dietary exposure. These same levels have been attributed to various ailments. So, the level of pesticide residue found in non-organic food can indeed cause or contribute to adverse health affects. Organic farmers use significantly less pesticides and most use none, so there is much less risk of pesticide residue on organic food.
myndy86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@burazekun As was stated in earlier studies, the levels of organophosphates, etc. found in most people are likely caused primarily through dietary exposure. These same levels have been attributed to various ailments. So, the level of pesticide residue found in non-organic food can indeed cause or contribute to adverse health affects. Organic farmers use significantly less pesticides and most use none, so there is much less risk of pesticide residue on organic food.
myndy86 1 month ago
@burazekun As studies I posted mentioned, the levels of organophosphates, etc. in most people are likely caused primarily through dietary exposure. At those same levels studies suggest adverse health affects occur, so pesticide residue on non-organic food may cause or contribute to adverse health affects, especially in children and pregnant women. Most organic farms use no pesticides and those that do use significantly less than conventional so the pesticide risk is greatly reduced.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 48% of the farms that use pesticides does not qualify 52% as a majority being barely over half. What you are saying there is that you have nearly a 50/50 chance of getting a pesticide in your organic food. However heres something to read. ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organics.doc Apparently there are more like this too. The pesticides used on organic farms can include the same pesticides as normal, but have been given permission to use less. epa.gov/agriculture/torg.html
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun 52% is the majority, especially in comparison to the amount of conventional farmers that use pesticides. Also organic doesn't use any herbicides(other than vinegar) compared to the huge majority of conventional farmers. The reality is that organic uses significantly less pesticides and therefore any health, environmental, etc. issues with pesticides are greatly reduced by organic food/farming. Also, nitrates from food(vegetables) was compared in the thyroid cancer study.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 I apologize, I use the two thirds majority basis. Some places use the three fifths majority basis. Though the definition "over 50%" can be used. I just find to many unhappy people if that was the case. It's semantics. Also, animal fertilizer generally has allot of nitrates too as well as decaying plant matter. Both of which I use in my gardens. But like I said, you don't know what you can get. You have a extreme low, a mean, and a high. You can't say "all is equal" to clarify.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun I wouldn't argue that all is equal, but some foods have a higher average nitrate level, and in general organic fertilizers like manure, plant matter, etc. would be absorbed more slowly, both reducing the nitrate/nitrite levels in the crops grown in that soil and a reduction of nitrates/nitrites leeching into groundwater, or in runoff, etc. Also, if organically fed animal's manure, organically grown plants, etc. are used the soil is likely to contian less nitrates/nitrites.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 I can't refute anything said here. But normally the nitrate and nitrite volumes are not dangerous. But even a 0.01% chance higher is still a higher chance. That I wont argue, normally this is not an issue. However, genetics being so vague to people, some people may be worse off then others, including those with histories of such things like thyroid issues. Also, "organically" fed animals are not significantly lower in nitrates and nitrites. But even a 0.01% is still better.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun The studies suggest there is as much as 50% less nitrates in organic vegetables, so the risk of thyroid cancer would likely be reduced 50% more than the conventional eaters risk. Also, if organically fed animals are consuming plant matter that has 50% less nitrates. then it is reasonable to assume they will have less nitrates as well(unless nitrates are added during processing, etc.). Also, their manure(composed of plant matter) would also likely contain less nitrates.
myndy86 1 month ago
@burazekun The overall benefit is far greater than 0.01%. If we look at pesticides which can have a cumulative body burden, especially for children, then even if organic food had 0.01ppm less pesticides per food, over the course of a day, year, etc. that adds up to a huge difference. Also, the huge majority of studies suggest organic has higher levels of certain nutrients and/or healthier(organically fed animals lived longer, had better reproduction, etc.), which is another benefit.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 The use of 0.01% was a example. It was used as "any" amount can be viewed as a benefit. Also 50% off the original risk is how you should apply that. However individual bodies process things differently. You may be able to use that as a mean, but it can't apply to everyone, including with highs and lows in the organic industry. Also, apple rinds don't break down well in the intestine, I always peel them. ^^ Also I boil and bake them. Same with many fruits and vegi's. More flavor
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun I'm not intending to say everyone will have the same advantage or that all organic foods are equal, but on average people who regularly eat organic will have a 50% reduced risk of thyroid cancer compared to the risk for conventional eaters(original risk). There will be on average a reduction of pesticide residues, on average increase of certain nutrients, and on average increased health benefits from the reduced pesticide residues and increased nutrients, etc.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Many in the US eat to much as is. Nutrients are something we intake on a fairly frequent basis. As for the chance for thyroid cancer or other related issues in regards to pesticides, nitrides, and nitrates, are relatively small in the global scheme of things. The number of people who have thyroid cancer are:
458,000
101,000 males
357,000 females
The population of the US is over 307,006,550, both samples of Americans. That actually is 0.0015% of the population has it. ^^
burazekun 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@burazekun If we look at one of the most recent studies, the French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA) report, which suggests "organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals (Fe, Mg)", which is consistent with most other studies. Then look at the % of Americans who do not get the recommended amounts of the nutrients(34.3% Fe, 68% Mg) ars.usda.gov/services/docs"dot"htm?docid=11046
Obviously, organic would have a nutritional and health impact on those deficient Americans.
myndy86 1 month ago
@burazekun Those stats are from 2008. In 2010 alone more than 44,000 people were diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer is also the fastest growing cancer in women in the U.S. Also, I think you did the math wrong, even with those stats I get over 0.1% have thyroid cancer. The U.S. isn't global and if you add up all the stats for illnesses, etc. caused or contributed to by pesticides, nitrites and nitrates it is significant. That doesn't include environmental impact.
myndy86 1 month ago
@burazekun "Based on rates from 2006-2008, 0.97% of men and women born today will be diagnosed with cancer of the thyroid at some time during their lifetime. This number can also be expressed as 1 in 104 men and women will be diagnosed with cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime." seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/thyro.html
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 That effectively means that you have a 0.0015% chance of getting thyroid cancer. And that is not severely enough, impacted by the content of your food. ^^ There are far worse ways to increase those chances to get Thyroid Cancer. So yeah, my 0.01% statement was actually less accurate because I was too optimistic. ^^ Even if it was an analogy to point out any improvement is a good one. Just so you know, some of those people eat Organic foods. Didn't help them.
burazekun 1 month ago
@myndy86 That argument I can see. However I still find that instead of spending 100 more a week for a small improvement. I am better off taking larger contenders like many preservative out of the diet instead. I normally don't cook with the exception of left overs after all.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun If you are not cooking your conventional food then you are likely still consuming most of the pesticide residue. "None of the pesticide residues was significantly reduced when the apples were subject to simple washing or coring." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14668155
To reduce pesticide residue you would have to peel, juice, store, or boil apples, and even then you still may be consuming as much as 25% or more of the original pesticide residue on the apple.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Could the industry do better? I am going to say yes. But I don't think that organic is exactly the way. Organic industry varies to greatly in how they handle they products.
burazekun 1 month ago
@CelestialWolven "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 2
@CelestialWolven "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 2
@myndy86 I will send you links via pm that state otherwise.
CelestialWolven 1 month ago
@myndy86 Also the ncbi article doesn't state what else the children ate. Like process foods? It's true that a good home cooked, non-preservative based diet is better for you. That includes organic items. When working in organic industry, you limit yourself to making most your own food. Meaning that canned goods, and many prepackaged items are no longer an issue of concern. Also 25 kids? I would like to see a larger study, but it's a start. Monitor before and after. >< Not just during.
burazekun 1 month ago
@burazekun I over spoke, apparently the entire page didn't load. However knowing prior dietary intake can seriously impact this study. Switching out from organic to preservative free can also impact the study positively.
burazekun 1 month ago
So it's smart to buy foods grown in massive, unsanitary factories that create monopolies in the food industry than local farmers who grow their foods without preservatives and other junk?
MoisesZTech 1 month ago 5
@MoisesZTech no. Penn and Teller are paid liars.
SaveAmericaFightNWO 1 month ago 5
Typical debunking story. Filled with comments not substantiated with data/facts.
Inquisitor6321 1 month ago 7
mmhhh...I don't think that either side had very good arguments to be honest ;-) A lot of organic stuff still needs to be treated. The only way you can live relatively healthy is if you grow it yourself. I don't eat meat because of what they are doing to the animals (even organic) and I don't think it's healthy to stuff yourself with meat al the time. But to tell people that pesticides are not harmful for humans is absolute garbage!!I only believe that if I see this guy drinking a bottle of it..
thegreenjudy 1 month ago
@thegreenjudy nope.. organic stuff does NOT need treated, fuck you, fuck that! go fuck your own food up. I don't meat either, but I do not want organic food "treated" with whatever YOU would want it treated with? I'm not sure what you meant by treating...
SaveAmericaFightNWO 1 month ago
@SaveAmericaFightNWO Calm down and educate yourself - google organic pesticides.
Of course they treat organic food - do you think the bugs stay away from veg that's grown organically?They just use different stuff but it's not necessarily better for us. If you want mainly untreated veg grow your own - but mind those slugs ;-)
thegreenjudy 1 month ago
Well, this is just about the most pathetic show of money-hungry propaganda I have EVER seen! And that shit is everywhere! Did they ever show any real evidence to what they were saying?? Ten minutes of research will show anyone who can read plenty of evidence showing the nutritional benefits of eating pesticide-free food! Not that I ever considered myself a fan of these wierdos, but after watching this, penn and teller can kiss my tree-huggin, organic food-lovin ass!
breathemetal76 1 month ago 6
@breathemetal76 u might always want to learn to live a fluoride free water life as well
whitestar111 1 month ago