This Family Ate Only Organic For Two Weeks - Watch What Happened

[swilton]

This powerful two minute film shows you a family that was not eating organic due to cost. They switched as part of a study to see what would happen after two weeks of eating organic only.

This study was conducted by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute and the results/text can be found here.

https://www.coop.se/organiceffect

[niyad]

1. and waiting for the usual suspects in . . . . .

[Major Nikon]

3. ...to point out how a non-peer reviewed and biased "study" amounts to a hill of beans?

[Gormy Cuss]

5. It's described as a pilot study and limitations are discussed in the study's report.

IOW, the authors freely admit that the data have limitations, not the least of which is that it's not generalizable. Rather, they suggest that it shows potential for a full blown, controlled study.

[Major Nikon]

10. Actually they leave out quite a bit

And quite often even pilot studies are peer reviewed, and when published in reputable journals gains considerable credibility that this one lacks.

I'm not sure what a larger study would hope to prove that this one doesn't. Even if you accept every single one of their findings, it still doesn't prove any negative health effect.

[Gormy Cuss]

12. It's not common for tiny pilot studies to get peer review

at least in my experience. This is essentially a case study of one family for two weeks -- hardly worth reporting in a journal. Of course it doesn't prove anything.

However, it can be used as a reference in design of a controlled study that may actually measure something.

[Major Nikon]

13. Again, what would be measured?

It's not as if pesticide residues measured in the body in parts per billion is any huge revelation, nor is measuring a reduction in such things to an even more statistically irrelevant proportion all that ground breaking.

[Gormy Cuss]

16. You just articulated what would be measured. Whether the measured change is significant or

that the measured differences represent groundbreaking work is a different matter. Those are topics for the funders and later reviewers to discuss.

[Major Nikon]

17. Which would make any hypothetically larger study no more valuable than this one

It's not as if this hasn't been done countless times before with no causal factors noted.

[arikara]

7. It didn't take long.

[Jesus Malverde]

26. gruel eaters

[longship]

2. Let me guess before I view...

Zombie Apocalypse



On edit after view: I call rubbish on this.

* One family? Not a very big study. More like an anecdote, which is not valid data.
* No control group.
* Unblinded.
* Plus, Organic Ag still uses pesticides, just so-called natural ones.

Plus, then there's the fact that these days "organic" is as much a marketing term as anything.

I do not think this will stand up. We will see.
But this seems nothing more than propaganda by Big Organic and ideological followers.

Food is food. The "organic" label is just an excuse to charge more for the same damned thing.

[drynberg]

29. Objective? I think not.

[cui bono]

48. Bullshit. Non-organic food has pesticides in it, can be GMO...

Both of which are bad for the environment, even if you don't think they are bad for those that ingest them.

Organic food tastes better.

"Big Organic"? Trying to liken organic food to corporations such as Monsanto or something there? wow, the corporatist mindset on DU is astounding.

[longship]

50. Organic food can use pesticides

From defn, at Wiki:

Organic foods are foods produced by organic farming. While the standards differ worldwide, organic farming in general features cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not allowed, although certain organically approved pesticides may be used under limited conditions. In general, organic foods are also not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or synthetic food additives.

And under testing, organic has been found to be not significantly more healthy than normal food.
Here:http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/15/study-claiming-organic-food-more-nutritious-deeply-flawed-say-independent-scientists/

Myself, sometimes I buy organic, if it isn't too expensive and it looks good.

But there really does not seem to be all the benefits that are claimed. As for pesticides, I hope people make sure that they wash their organic vegetables, just like they would normal food.

And if you don't think that the organic label is big business, than you have not paid attention at your local grocers.

[Major Nikon]

4. They managed to prove...

That the tested pesticides were already well below accepted values and don't persist in the body, which was already known.

They also proved they didn't test for "organic" pesticides, which is not surprising, considering the obvious bias.

[arikara]

6. Maybe they don't persist in the body

but if you keep eating them they are replenished so they are always there. Have long term effects been blind studied and peer reviewed? And who decided the effective values, was that blind studied and peer reviewed? Were studies done on infants, children, the elderly, women and men? or just on a few men like so many of them.

What organic pesticides are you talking about? I pull the weeds, and use ladybugs in my garden there are no residues from that. The local farmers around here do the same.

Anyhow go ahead, if you don't mind eating food laden with pesticide residues then by all means do so. Some of us prefer real food unadulterated by monsanto's potions and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Major Nikon]

8. Even the so-called study authors don't claim as much

Their claim is that the cocktail of pesticides somehow amount to more physical harm, even though they didn't prove that, or even attempt to prove that, and no evidence for such a thing exists.

What organic pesticides are you talking about? I pull the weeds, and use ladybugs in my garden there are no residues from that. The local farmers around here do the same.

And neither are you creating what the study authors call "organic" which are commercially grown products which carry the organic certifications that you lack, and inevitably include another set of pesticide residues that the "study" conveniently didn't test. This test was done in Europe, which no doubt has a different approval list than the US, but for the US list of approved organic and synthetic pesticides allowed under the NOP, you can refer to Title 7, part 205.

Anyhow go ahead, if you don't mind eating food laden with pesticide residues then by all means do so.

Doing so is pretty much impossible to avoid, because even if you grow your own food with ladybugs and call it "organic" you still get a pesticide load inherent to the plant itself, and from a more practical sense products which are sold as certified "organic" most certainly also contain another set of pesticide residues.

[vkkv]

33. The testing and video was asking the family: Do you want so many pesticides in your bodies?

Not once did the video pronounce that the pesticides were bad for us, only suggesting that they could not be good. The results do indicate a difference in pesticide levels between eating organic and not. You are free though, to add shit and stir.

[Major Nikon]

37. The results do not indicate that

The study did not test for pesticides commonly used by the organic industry, nor did it test for pesticides inherent to the plants themselves. They only tested for pesticides used in conventional agriculture and unsurprisingly the results given produce exactly the result the obviously biased authors wanted. "only suggesting that they could not be good" simply stokes the irrational fears of the chemophobic. When pesticide levels are found which are many orders of magnitude lower than what can be expected to cause biological harm, lowering those levels to one more magnitude of statistically negligible levels is of zero benefit to consumers which is why the authors artfully dance around the subject. The reason why they can never claim any sort of health benefit is because there is none. You are free though, to add shit and stir.

[Archae]

9. I've never described organic food as being bad.

And less pesticides in a person's body can be good.

The problem is the cost, (which was mentioned,) and the condemnation by organic adherents that non-organic food is "poison."

These are inflammatory and simply false.



http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/gmo-poisons-found-in-indiana-waterways/question-1295527/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s

[Major Nikon]

22. Those who throw around words like "toxic" or "poison" ....

without including exposure rates, are simply outing themselves as someone who has little regard for basic chemistry.

Salt has a known toxicity level which is higher than many (if not most) pesticides. Even water can be toxic.

[angrychair]

11. wow

I'll not argue the point that this video is in any way a scientific analysis of the benefits of an organic diet over a non-organic diet.
That being said, I am shocked and disappointed by the reaction to this video and its subject matter. Until now, I would have never thought I would have ever seen members of DU argue that pesticides in food is not an serious issue. Organic, non-pesticide laced food, is always better for you than the alternative.
There is no such thing as "normal" levels of pesticide chemicals in our blood or urine. It is disturbing to suggest otherwise.

[whereisjustice]

14. The same ones who shill for Monsanto are the same ones who shill for NSA, drones, militarized police

etc. Incredible isn't it? What the fuck has the Democratic Party become?

[ffr]

19. Who says they're part of the democratic party?

It's easy enough to weed out inconsistent and inflammatory thought and writing. Like water off a duck's back.

Filter and ignore.

Back on topic though, interesting findings from the study. I'd think that would be obvious without a study, but still eye opening.

[Major Nikon]

20. ...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit

[Jesus Malverde]

27. interesting...eh..nt

[Duppers]

15. I already had those DUers

on ignore. Wonderful bp-lowering thing, that ignore button is.

[FlatBaroque]

32. Ignire is the BEST feature of this web site

and I shall use it "liberally".

[Major Nikon]

18. Strawman

Nobody in this thread is saying pesticides in food isn't a "serious" issue. Such things should be regulated, tested, and monitored by the FDA and CDC and most certainly are, except for organic pesticides which curiously aren't so well regulated even though many of them are more toxic than their synthetic alternatives.

If you are under the impression that organically certified food doesn't contain pesticide, you are most certainly wrong. If you are under the impression that organically certified food doesn't contain synthetic pesticide, you are also most certainly wrong. If you are under the impression that organically certified food is somehow safer than the alternative, then please present your evidence, as I have yet to see any that doesn't include a heaping helping of woo.

I prefer to let the other side be the anti-science party. YMMV.

[bvar22]

39. You are certainly trying to downplay the importance...

..of pesticides in our food using all the old Monsanto Marketing slogans.
That is obvious to anyone reading this thread.

[Major Nikon]

41. If you disagree with me you MUST be an agent for "big agra"!

Brilliant!

I've never heard that one before.

[bvar22]

44. Strawman Alert.

The above post by Major Nikon is a crude Strawman.

No one in this thread, or anywhere else on DU has said "If you disagree with me you MUST be an agent for "big agra""

FAIL.

[Major Nikon]

45. You stole my line!

[bvar22]

47. Mea Culpa.

I also steal other cartoons and jokes from the Internet.

[pkdu]

51. Ummm...try post 19

[C Moon]

21. Agreed!

[bearssoapbox]

23. That "normal" level of pesticide chemicals in our blood or urine would be...

"0".

And like you I was surprised by the reaction to the OP. I just viewed this as a piece of info and interesting view/read.

Sadly we won't ever get to the zero levels because the cost of the organic foods will never get down to how cheap mega farms can grow food using pesticides.

Like meat with hormones and antibiotics, for the average consumer and those on assistance, that's all they can afford to buy.

[Major Nikon]

24. You won't ever get to zero levels because it's pretty much impossible

...or at the very least highly impractical.

The idea that "organic" foods contain zero pesticides isn't a very good one, btw.

Cheap isn't a bad thing. There is no public health problem with pesticide residues. There is a public health problem with people not getting enough fiber and complex carbohydrates. So making fresh produce more expensive simply exacerbates that problem for the most unfortunate.

[progree]

25. Consumer Reports tested many fruits and vegetables and found a big difference

in pesticide levels between organic and non-organic. There will always be Republican clowns and their DU allies who pooh pooh organics because they are not perfectly pesticide free (there is drift from other fields, there is pesticide in the soil from previous non-organic farming etc). As always, letting the perfect be the enemy of the hell-of-a-lot-better.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health/natural-health/pesticides/index.htm

[bvar22]

40. +1

Well said.

[swilton]

30. Thanks for all the feedback

both positive and negative.

Some anecdotal observations

I'm a NH local/organic foods advocate and by produce through a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) farmer who practices biodynamic farming utilizing horse-power for his mechanical (plowing, cultivating, fertilizing) resources. NH is second in the US (behind Vermont) in utilization of locally sourced produce to feed its population. There is a growing/vibrant movement within our region (Monadnock/southwestern NH on the border with Vermont) to further sourcing our produce (schools, hospitals, community kitchens, etc., etc.) locally, and going along with that, to be the healthiest community within the US by 2020. We also encourage and have vibrant physical fitness programs year-round. I am a member of my city's (Keene) Agriculture Commission. Keene sponsors a year-round (2 @ week May-Nov/1 every other week Dec-May) farmer's market.

As far as the study is concerned - all that I could argue is that it is not a fait accompli but is further evidence that organic produce is healthier and switching to it makes a difference. Yes the costs of organic produce are more expensive. But if one were to compare the costs of going organic vs. saving one's individual and family health costs in the long run, it makes more sense to go organic. A healthier body is not a push button/instantaneous sensation -it is a long term process. I assume the linkages between buying organic and support for a local vs. global food system. There are values in buying locally because a local food purchase contributes to the local (vs. globalized economy) and supports neighbors within the community...Finally, there are indirect benefits to our ecosystem (soil, water) of organic farming methods. Per bio-dynamic farming, soil is grown with the organic produce and resources (i.e., water) are conserved. Unlike industrial farming methods which leach nutrients out of the soil, organic farming enriches and conserves soil while producing food. Top soil is one of the most under appreciated and exploited natural resources.

There are some who have made the argument that going organic does not make that much of difference or that there are toxins also within organic produce....For that I would answer - look at who writes the standards for 'organic' the US Government's own USDA....I myself would argue that the USDA (as being influenced by the corporate food industry) probably sets the bar fairly low for what is and is not 'organic' by definition....All the more reason for citizens to become more active in what is and is not allowed into their food system and on their tables....all the more reason to know whom they purchase their food from.

[niyad]

34. thank you for all this. some of the responses here were. . .interesting, to say the least.

[bvar22]

42. President Obama appointed Micheal Taylor to head the FDA.

Michael Taylor is a former Lawyer and Lobbyist for Monsanto.

In fact, the FDA and the USDA are infested with more "former" Monsanto employees
than my (no-pesticide) Zucchini was infested with Squash Bugs last year.

[Damansarajaya]

31. Shared on FB. Thanks. nt

[niyad]

35. . . .

[progressoid]

36. Why did they test the urine?

They should do a blood or tissue sample. But that wouldn't be as clever for the advertisement.

[bvar22]

43. I agree.

What we are seeing in the Urine are pesticides that weren't absorbed by the body.

[GoneFishin]

38. Kick.

[mother earth]

46. All the same responses ad nauseum. All I say is label the food...I want to KNOW. I just want to

friggin know. The consumer should be the deciding factor.

Monsanto & their ilk are pure greed, GMO's are not labeled for good reason, sales would fall of dramatically...just label it...most people want to simply know. Ignorance can be bliss for all those who don't want to know. Let the market dictate, isn't that SOP? The market wants to know. Other countries ban Monsanto/Syngenta for good reason.

Americans are largely uncertain over whether genetically modified foods are safe for the environment or safe to eat, but the vast majority say that foods containing genetically modified ingredients should be labeled, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.

According to the new survey, 82 percent of Americans think GMO foods should be labeled, while only 9 percent say they should not be labeled. The vast majority of respondents across demographic groups favored labeling, with little division either by political party or by how much respondents had heard about the development of genetically modified crops.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/gmo-poll_n_2807595.html

And that article is from 2013, I imagine a bigger number would be more accurate in 2015.

[cui bono]

49. +1

[Android3.14]

52. "watch what happened"

More click bait. Maybe they should have included the words "one weird trick" in the title.

Did the family health improve? How much more did the organics cost? What were the levels compared to known toxic amounts?

How will agriculture feed the 7.3 billion people currently on the planet without the support of chemicals?

I support labeling and denounce the copyright of genetic code, but this video is just plain propaganda by the organic food industry for a product that pretty much only rich people can afford.