What's the Deal with Organic Foods? Part 1

I disagree.

Much of this information was brainwashed into our heads by Rodale Press. Robert Rodale began organic production as a RELIGION, with no backed info. Not all chemicals are bad, and not all natural substances are good. It is a balance. SYNTHETIC BHT actually reduced colon cancer by preventing the NATURAL growth of aflatoxin in cereals. (which gets more complicated with casein, but I don't have room to explain)

Remember, its natural to die before 50, to have many miscarriages, etc.

Even though 2 billion people is a dramatic number, organic production does require far more space, despite any contradictions from Rodale press (look at the soil where they tested) Paradoxally, that space could be acheived if we had less animal food production. It is a very complicated mess in general.
 Please understand that Robert Rodale started organic production as a religion with no backed info. If you buy organic, make sure its a valid reason. (ie- I get it for the better ingredients)

anyone who would dispute what Natalie is saying in this video has NO common sense at all OR has a vested interest in protecting big agribusiness.

Okay then ... show me the link of the furthur studies that show there was no negative effects when ingested.

If possible I won't mind the link to articles of Kesavan denying his own report.

and for the record - i am not purposing we switch to organic foods - hell, i dont even eat them really. im not even saying its doable right now. all i am saying is that it is POSSIBLE.

Okay so lets keep putting chemicals in our crops and killing people that way - much better solution.... The fact is your claim that 2 billion people would die if we switched purely to organic foods is an absolute guess. wheres the data to back it up? We can grow as much food as we want - its entirely up to us. We have the space - it just depends on whether we want to free it up or not. And my cigarette analogy shows my ignorance how?

also, the Kesavan study you posted was aquired in the 1970's... Do you honestly think we use the same techniques from 1970's?

Your quoting PC Kesavan, yet do you understand that his conclusion during the study of radiation effects on lab mice has been widely criticized by the scientific community?  Kesavans report was leaked despite confidential status and, when questioned about his report Kesavan even denies any involvement and disagrees with the conclusion?
You must not know this or you would not be quoting his study? Did you know that in further study, the grain was shown to have no negative effect when ingested?

Umm.. whats the problem? That there are more than 6 billion people on the earth, but if we switched to 100% organic farms we could only feed about 4 billion? Thats the obvious problem to me, and genetic manipulation is the solution. Are you calling for the death of 2 billion people just so that you can have organic food?

Your statement about cigarettes shows your ignorance towards the food crisis the world faces. The scientists helping with this problem are heros and should be respected.

Thats a terrible way of looking at it imho. You think genetic modification is the answer?.... Try the problem. Genetic modification is the reason we have to resort to using it in the first place.

Just like cigarettes. We didnt need them - but we created and sold them anyways - look what its doing to Earth's people. now we rely on the crap just to "sustain" our economy. The economy would fall without cigarattes - yet they kill you.

think about it.