13weekdiet2

25 Comments

  1. I’m curious about studies with regard to environmental impact of
    conventional vs organic farming. Clearly there have been issues with
    conventional farming for example the free falling bee populations.

    Is Organic Food Better for Your Health?

  2. Spoiler: Organic food isn’t healthier. However, there are still reasons to
    eat it and reasons not to.

  3. The +Healthcare Triage YouTube page gets better and better with every new
    video.

  4. I liked the parts where you were talking about studies. The whole Norman
    Borlaug bit about “we need fossil fuels and mechanized agriculture” was a
    bit of a red herring in the discussion about health. It caused you to come
    down against organic food without the corresponding research on crop yields
    or the general efficacy of other farming techniques like organic, no till,
    etc.

  5. One of the reasons I’ve been endorsed to eat organic meat is because they
    do not get antibiotics and thus reduces the chance of me being introduced
    me to antibiotics-resistant bacteria.

    Another was that organic milk is not homogenized and homogenized milk is
    supposedly a health risk, hence I should buy organic milk.

    You don’t address these two points. Did any study cover this?

  6. I’d like to introduce another side of this debate, where people say that
    buying organic is good to support the companies who produce the organic
    foods… http://i.imgur.com/QSpAm54.jpg

  7. Ok, so organic foods don’t have added nutritional value. Fair enough. My
    question is basically….do traditionally farmed vegetables have added
    carcinogens? I think everyone can agree that eating pesticide isn’t ideal.
    And sure, you can wash things. But surely some amount of pesticide must be
    absorbed by the roots, and be actually in the plant?

  8. TheSwoleBroscientist

    Fuck organic food buyers.

    Fuck you, you and your self-righteousness. You guru-following pieces of
    shit.

    Yeah, I love meat. I love knowing that my cows were slautered.

    And fuck your organic bullshit.

  9. Oversimplifications aside, it is never just about health. But even there,
    processed and synthetic foods are almost invariably made from inorganic
    foods, and these artificial food products have an observably rough time
    digesting compared to whole foods. Talk to any doctor, and they’ll
    recommend organic or at the very least whole foods for this reason.
    Its mainly about the ethics though, of how we treat the planet, the food it
    gives us, and the condition of the land and biota we leave behind for the
    future, and in that regard foods made alongside pesticides, fungicides,
    antibiotics, and growth hormones are absolutely atrocious, and if I can
    avoid giving them my money I always will.

  10. Better for your health? Nope

    And significantly worse for your pocket book too 

  11. I don’t want horribly high levels of toxins in my food but the healthiness
    doesn’t concern me as much as knowing that the people working with the food
    weren’t put at risk and that the animals were treated with a fair amount of
    respect before they became food (or if they produce food). Usually that
    comes with it being ecologically produced. 

  12. Your title is broader than the answer you give. You only answer the
    question of nutritional content. What about the broader health questions
    that come from conventional agriculture? How healthy is it to put more
    pesticides into the environment year after year? If conventional
    agriculture had to pay to remediate environmental damage, would it still be
    cheaper?
    Also, the fact that you and your family eat organic (and local), but you
    are so down on the organic movement makes you seem like a hypocrite.
    Perhaps you would do better with a video about the best way to eat, taking
    location, resources, and environment into account.

  13. This video is another example of what I like about HT. You start by
    explaining how much more flavor locally grown food is…. which is
    typically organic. You then present the facts, which are that organic food
    has the same nutritional values as other foods. It’s… “just the facts”
    but also wrapped up in a nice way for people to… digest.

  14. *Really, Seriously, No Way…*

    I’ve heard people say that there is no health benefit to eating organic
    food and +Aaron Carroll presents a decent amount of research to back up his
    claim.

    While +Gregory Ciotti would tell me that research never lies, my brain has
    a hard time wrapping itself around this information. I’m fully aware it’s
    almost impossible to feed the worlds population with organic food, but
    crazy chemicals, depleted soil and genetically modified produce can’t be
    just as good, can it?

    This weeks +Healthcare Triage says different.

    #OrganicFood #Nutrition #Health 

  15. I agree with many of the other commenters that there may not be direct
    nutritional benefits to eating organics, but organic practices certainly
    affect our health. The FDA has been on agribusiness for a while now about
    the use of sub-therapeutic dose antibiotics to expedite growth in
    livestock. There is a growing body of evidence that such practices
    contribute to the accelerating prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria
    in the population, which certainly exerts a costly price on the healthcare
    system. This problem could be mitigated by increased use of organic
    practices. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493153/
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18043630
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767101/

  16. Here is what bothers me about these type of “research” and “facts” videos.
    Pro-organic consumers argument is the effects of a lifetime of eating, not
    a short study. What was the time frame of the studies mentioned? When it
    comes to food, in my opinion, they should do many years of studies, maybe
    generations (because YES it’s that crucial). And who set the “maximum
    allowed limits” and what are they? Oh then there is the economic side to
    the whole thing. Traditional grown food uses big food pesticides and “big
    seed” companies to grow the GMOs. They have been accused of using mafia
    like tactics into bullying not just the organic farmer but a farmer who
    wants to use a different non big brand method of pesticides and seeds. Some
    research might also need to be done on why so many other countries are
    banning non-organic as well. They don’t prefer organic or non-pesticides as
    a “trend” like most US pro-organic consumers tend to be labeled. It seems
    like a 7 year war is being summarized by a 1 day battle (so to speak).

  17. 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.

    To elaborate:
    “Here in Healthcare Triage we rely on research and research says there’s no
    difference”. 1:22 of this video.
    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/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-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/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-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/2014/01/26/dominos-mcdonalds-wendys-are-all-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.

  18. by liking the video doesn’t mean I agree with you.

  19. Nice video, it seems that a lot of people are still stuck in the naturalist
    fallacy.
    However you did seem to describe the differences in pesticide contamination
    a bit too quickly, can you break it down a bit? You said that organic food
    was more like to be free of pesticides than conventional food, what
    pesticides were found in conventional food? Do these pesticides have any
    deleterious health effects upon people who consume conventional food? 

  20. It would be interesting to see the results for 30 year and 50 years
    studies 

  21. i’d like to review the study, but all my nutritionist friends are in the
    same camp as this guy. 

  22. Since when has organic ever been about your own immediate health? It’s
    about environmental impact.

  23. The price argument here baffles me. I buy organic bananas at 68c where the
    regular bananas are 48c. Not exactly breaking the bank.

  24. I’m not talking about nutrients in it. I’m talkig about side effects of
    pesticides

  25. “No proven benefit”

    This video has only talked about health benefits that occur directly from
    consumption of the products. This looks at the micro picture and ignore the
    systemic issue involved with conventional agriculture. Which is fine, but
    the above statement is misleading. “no proven health benefit” would have
    been better.

    I’m surprisingly disappointed. I expected to like but disagree, but I found
    this whole video misleading, almost with an agenda. While this video raises
    some good points, and yes organics are over hyped, but it ignores the big
    picture. Even saying “no proven health benefit” might be a stretch as there
    has been no evidence presented that on an ecosystem scale, organic
    agriculture provides no health benefit (this is admitted). And it certainly
    might, given that smaller systems tends to fail less spectacularly. The
    environmental risks scales are less, so logically, overall less people will
    have negative health effects–is that not a health benefit? For instance,
    ecoli in organic produced food is less risky in that the food it is
    produced on a smaller scale and is, in theory, easier to control for risks
    and problems.

    Lastly, this video purported to deal only with the direct health effects
    and then went on to make (or comment on) an argument about feeding the
    world’s population. This is disingenuous. Such arguments are not without
    their many protractors and to present only one side (and so complete
    reductive/simplified) within your ‘fact only’ program make me see this as
    having an agenda. Which disappoints me. There’s a huge amount of ethical,
    political, geopolitical, ecological problems with such arguments

    Stick to the facts, Healthcare Triage.

Comments are closed.

Site Disclaimer: This site is designed for educational purposes only and is not engaged in rendering medical advice or professional services.
If you feel that you have a health problem, you should seek the advice of your Physician or health care Practitioner.

Frontier Theme