Debunked: Ridiculous Study Claims Organic Same as Conventional (Video)
The latest study to demonize foods free of GMO ingredients and mercury-containing high-fructose corn syrup ultimately once again fails to accurately address key aspects of the conventional verses organic debate and even falls short of properly addressing the limited scope of concerns it does attempt to analyze. You can see even from the comments on many of the mainstream reports that readers quickly saw through the eroneous ‘organic is the same as conventional’ headlines and began highlighting the many inaccuracies of the research.
As I outline in the video, the study completely fails to account for key factors such as the presence of GMOs, artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose, mercury (such as that admittedly contained in high-fructose corn syrup), BPA, and much more. It also does not even properly address the two topics it seeks to address concerning the presence antibiotics and chemical residue.
The researchers fail first of all to reveal the difference between the organic food and conventional food pesticides, and then go on to state that organic food actually does have lower pesticide levels.
They then state that it doesn’t matter that conventional foods have higher pesticide, herbicide, and insecticide levels because they don’t ‘exceed legal limits.’ They then fail to mention that Roundup, Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide, has been linked to DNA damage, infertility, and over 29 other associated diseases.
Yet they insist that there is no real difference. That is not even taking into consideration the numerous of other studies on pesticides and insecticides – even reported by mainstream news.
Apparently these factors don’t matter to the Stanford researchers, who utterly ignored them as they compiled their analysis that actually contradicts itself over and over again.
The report also admittedly states that organic foods have a drastically lower percentage chance of containing antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the kind that produces mutant superbugs that cannot be treated with antibiotics.
The very same kind that have evaded all antibiotics and ‘super drugs’ and are virtually untreatable by mainstream medicine. A new strain of resistant tuberculosis known as the ‘white plague‘ has even started to spread that is the result of rampant antibiotic use across the globe.
Conventional farm animals are dosed up with these antibiotics to prevent them from dying as a result of the serious illnesses they come down with. The animals are stricken from both eating a poor diet often full of genetically modified grain as well as sitting stationary in a claustrophobic area for years.
Around 30% of cows in the United States are also injected with Monsanto’s genetically modified synthetic hormone known as rBGH, which is banned in 27 countries worldwide. Apparently the fact that the genetically engineered rBGH uses molecules and DNA sequences that are the result of molecular cloning doesn’t matter to the Stanford researchers.
The list could go on and on. Overall, it seems quite apparent that the researchers really have no idea what the word ‘health’ entails. While even the very few aspects they examine seem to heavily favor organic food items, the hundreds of other essential factors are wildly overlooked in the report that does nothing but push back the general public’s notion of what true health is by about 30 years.
Anthony thank you, this NEEDS to be shared and the media needs to carry this story.
Shared and Liked
Excellent job Anthony, what a joke study!!!
11212
Its the drug resistant germs we need to watch.
If govt will weaponized anthrax and mail it out to citizens, we should also be suspicious of tuberculosis that is resistant to antibiotics, not to mention all the other germs like the weaponized syphilis they now call Lyme's disease.
The best defense for our health, in terms of germs, is colloidal silver.
But, be sure to get an ionic form, like Advanced Silver DOT com or similar.
Funny how this "study" is published just weeks before CA voters will decide on prop 37, no?
Sorry the facts contrast conventional wisdom, but as Freakonomics has shown, they often do. France and the UK did extensive research in the recent past and came away with the same conclusion; organic foods pose no health concerns, nor provide any health benefits unless you take into consideration the psychology or the consumer. The organic food advantage is simply a marketing ploy and now that the huge food corporations have adopted the strategy, we see a shift to "local" and fresh food that are not shipped which is a true blessing. Anyone who truly understands the chemistry in today's modern food supply system knows "organic is healthier" = BS.
The FDA and Big Agriculture thanks you for your support. There's nothing to see here. Another good example were the plethora of studies that proved that smoking was not a health problem. Course they were all funded by RJR Reynolds or Philip Morris.
There are many things this study hasn't taken into account for instance: Mercury. But look at the health of the average American around you. Our risk of cancers are sky high. Autism and Alzheimer's are more numerous then ever. And even more troubling is the hormonal shift happening in adolescents. (The rate of pre-teen girls developing faster than previous generations) All of these problems despite the fact that we have more prescription medicines than ever before. There is actually a study linking new monsanto gmo products to malignant tumors in Rats.
My mom smoked for 40 years. And when she started in college. She told me later that she knew it was bad. She knew it wasn't normal to cough as much as she did. But she smoked anyway. Everyone 'knew' she said. Weather they admitted it or not. Sometimes the facts DON'T contrast conventional wisdom. Sometimes conventional wisdom is right (weather they say it out loud or not).
I have to buy organic butter and milk. Reg.butter breaks my throat out and drys it out for hours if I eat it.Reg milk makes me sick to my stomach.
So you tell me there is no differance.
Big corps don't want anyone to know that they're eating GMOs and what they're doing to them.
So, let me get this straight. You start by blasting the media for skewing the reporting of a literature review (which surveys the existing peer-reviewed literature and doesn't do new research) then blast the report of the review (which is not the review). Finally you look at the review itself, but ignore that the review cannot make statements that aren't well supported by the peer-reviewed published evidence (contradictory because the evidence from different studies is contradictory). If there is an absence of evidence (no good data), that is not the same as evidence of absence (no effect) and that's what this review says – little evidence of health benefits. You can make all the conjectures you wish about various health effects, but without the data, you can't get it past a peer-review (for very good reason). Get the data, publish and I'll be on your side. But you can't just claim health effects without data. This review is claiming that there is insufficient data. So lobby congress to increase NSF funded research into food so we can get the data.
Looks like someone hasn't done their research and has no clue about any of the subjects discussed. Good try, though.
one point about GMO corn is that it cannot self propogate. so is it just like regular non-gmo corn? that alone tells you it is not the same as natural corn. It's like a mule, you have to have a donkey and a horse to make a mule. Two mules cannot breed and make another mule… they are sterile. they are real and strong but cannot self propagat. They are not sustainable just like the gmo corn. that fact alone tells you there is a significant difference in the product. Also, gmo corn needs 2 specific pesticides to protect it from pests. you can pontificate in an intelligent voice all day long and it won't change those facts. so go eat your gmo corn. Also, research the x-Monsanto executives that now sit on the FDA there something corny going on here.
Thanks for making this video.
Puteo's right when he writes "Looks like someone hasn’t done their research and has no clue about any of the subjects discussed". Anthony G.'s text at the head raves mostly about things that weren't part of the study, and gets his facts wrong about the rest (such as rBST and the source of TB multi-drug resistance).
Mondoman, are you paid to ignore the facts or is it a joke?
Subscribed to your Youtube channel, really appreciate what you're doing. All of the trolls and shills fighting causing problems need to seriously do their own research and question their motives.
Testing
g
The cafeteria at Stanford … offers gluten-free, vegetarian and vegan meals…
Now days a number of people are suffering from both mental and physical health fall issues and these are just because of worst eating practices or worst food choice. The use of pesticides are rapidly increases in food production therefore we are getting less nutritious foods now days so to get better and beneficial changes in our health issues we have to follow the trend of natural eating and organic eating practices.
It depends what they mean by conventional and organic, if conventional means food that is industrially produced and packed with a lot of pesticides and artificial chemicals or is GMO and organic is the food that is as pure and as free from the above mentioned additives as possible, "natural", taken right from the nature in some small farm, then the study or the research is not accurate and is misleading the people with some evil intention in mind. But if with organic they mean the food that is produced and grown in the same way as the conventional food and is only advertised as "organic", then the researchers may be right, because of the obvious reason. People will have to decide on their own which statement is the right one.