http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl5GXArC134
My response:
After looking even further at the sources linked:
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/healthcare-triage-organic-food/
I removed my 'like' of this video because the phrasing has a negative spin that is not entirely true.
"Here in Healthcare Triage we rely on research and research says there's no difference". 1:22
Not entirely true. I followed the sources from here
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/healthcare-triage-organic-food/
to here
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/11/opinion/carroll-organic-food/
to the hyperlink in 'debates intensify' which leads here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/s...s-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html?ref=health
^This article is a good read if anyone's interested. The article addresses combined data from 237 studies. It does show some of the more positive aspects of organic foods.
2:40 "The other was phenols which was due to two studies that did not report sample size which is really odd." -video
"The organic produce also contained more compounds known as phenols, believed to help prevent cancer, than conventional produce. While the difference was statistically significant, the size of the difference varied widely from study to study, and the data was based on the testing of small numbers of samples. “I interpret that result with caution,” Dr. Bravata said." -article linked above.
3:34 "when they looked at all the food types and all the bacteria you can likely imagine they found no significant differences". -video
"Similarly, organic meat contained considerably lower levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria than conventionally raised animals did, but bacteria, antibiotic-resistant or otherwise, would be killed during cooking." -article
4:06 "eleven more looked at adults who weren't pregnant. Most examined bio-marker levels in serum, urine, breast milk and seamen. [...] no significant difference." -video
"The study’s conclusions about pesticides did seem likely to please organic food customers. Over all, the Stanford researchers concluded that 38 percent of conventional produce tested in the studies contained detectable residues, compared with 7 percent for the organic produce. (Even produce grown organically can be tainted by pesticides wafting over from a neighboring field or during processing and transport.) They also noted a couple of studies that showed that children who ate organic produce had fewer pesticide traces in their urine." -article
And more specific cases where organics have been proven to have more vitamins:
"Critics of the Stanford study also argue that lumping all organic foods into one analysis misses the greater benefits of certain foods. For example, a 2010 study by scientists at Washington State University did find that organic strawberries contained more vitamin C than conventional ones." -article
On a less health oriented topic brought up:
5:04 "towards the end of his career he argued there's just no way to feed the world's population without chemical fertilizers and technological advancement. With no proven benefits from organic methods we're only hurting ourselves and the chance for others to eat cheaply and easily by advocating for them." -video
This has a deceptive anti-organic spin. Technological advancements don't clash with organics. In fact in the link Dr.Aaron Carrol provided here:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
it says:
"I also firmly believe that increasing the chemicals used in agriculture to support insanely over-harvested monocultures will never lead to ecological improvement. In my mind, the ideal future will merge conventional and organic methods, using GMOs and/or other new technologies to reduce pesticide use while increasing the bioavailability of soils, crop yield, nutritional quality and biodiversity in agricultural lands. New technology isn’t the enemy of organic farming; it should be its strongest ally."
A specific example from a paper from 2007 states (pg7):
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/17/10/pdf/i1052-5173-17-10-4.pdf
"Agriculture has experienced several revolutions in histori-
cal times and, much like mechanization did a century ago,
changes in farming practices are once again transforming agri-
culture as farmers increasingly abandon the plow in favor of
long-shunned no-till methods. Could the growing adoption of
no-till and organic methods foster a new agricultural revolu-
tion based on soil conservation and soil ecology rather than
soil chemistry? The typical arguments offered for why organic
agriculture cannot feed the world have been blunted by recent
studies showing that organic farming can produce both crop
yields (Phillips et al., 1980; Blevins et al., 1998) and profits
(Pimentel et al., 2005) comparable to conventional methods.
Although no-till and organic methods may not be as productive
and competitive in all situations, substantial expansion of both
could happen without sacrificing either yields or profits.
Instead of using a plow to turn the soil and open the ground,
no-till farmers push seeds down through the organic matter
from prior crops, minimizing direct disturbance of the soil.
Leaving crop residue at the ground surface instead of plow-
ing it under allows it to act as mulch, helping to retain mois-
ture and leaving the soil less vulnerable to erosive rainfall and
runoff. Consequently, no-till farming can greatly reduce soil
erosion (Fig. 4) and even bring erosion rates close to soil pro-
duction rates (Fig. 5). In addition to dramatically reducing soil
loss, no-till methods can improve soil health and reduce costly
energy inputs"
While I acknowledge that organics aren't as healthy as people assume and the video has several valid points, I find it to be misleading. The words "no significant differences" are thrown in to cover when organics are in fact better and the entire video spins organics in a bad light. You should acknowledge the context that "safe" is defined by FDA standards and many people and countries like Europe disagree with this. The FDA has approved some weird stuff for food like this:
http://www.collective-evolution.com...l-feeding-you-a-chemical-used-in-silly-putty/
The source article even states:
"The scientists sidestepped the debate over whether the current limits are too high. “Some of my patients take solace in knowing that the pesticide levels are below safety thresholds,” Dr. Bravata said. “Others have questioned whether these standards are sufficiently rigorous.” "
This is an important point. Is "safe" really safe? Many would argue it's not and then the differences become significant.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/10/banned-foods.aspx
There is a long list of foods that other countries ban.
This is not hate mail but to inform you and those who read my post why I have removed my 'like' from the video and replaced it with a 'dislike'. Organics have a lot of promise, although not perfect, that can be adopted for a better future of agriculture. I have a lot of respect for the Healthcare Triage videos but I dislike this one.
Thank you.