The ‘Dirty Dozen’: An Economical Guide to Eating Organic
by admin on Sunday, February 19th, 2012 | 21 Comments
Complete video at: fora.tv Nutritionist Jennifer Crum discusses simple recommendations on eating organic for economically-minded consumers. Crum identifies peaches, apples, and grapes as the most likely to retain pesticide residue from among a “Dirty Dozen” list of fruits and vegetables. —– What do you eat in today’s confusing market? Farm raised versus wild? Organic or non-organic? Benefits of yoga and new exercise techniques. In recognition of National Nutrition Month the Cancer Center at NYU Langone Medical Center hosts a discussion on staying healthy and living well. – NYU Langone Medical Center Jennifer Crum, MS, RD, is a nutritionist at New York University Langone Medical Center.
These sites may provide more info in your search for better health...
National Health Service - Dictionary.com - Reference.com
Health Risks of Chemical Hair Dyes
quite useful
pretty much right down the line
porfavor no lea esto
el 13 de octubre de 1991
un niño llamado nick se tiro de un puente devido a problemas familiares
si ya leiste esto deves copiar y pegar
en otros 5 videos mas o si no
nick vendra por toda tu familia
haslo o moriran porfavor hasme? caso
yo lo lei y lo hise
i like the way she actually made sense
What the fuck is the point of eating organic food?
Nothing and what these idiots don’t realize it that organic yields like a fraction of the food per acre as modern techniques. There is no way we could sustain the people alive on earth right now if we all went organic.
EXACTLY.
It’s some half-assed fashion trend, along with just about all other preposterous eco-ripoffs.
I know, I mean, they’re aren’t enough cars for everyone in the world, so noone should ever drive. And there isn’t enough seafood for the world, so noone should ever eat seafood. And the whole world can’t fit in the Louvre, so noone should ever visit the Louvre. And there isn’t enough electricity to power everyone owning a computer, tv and AC at the same time, so noone should ever own all 3. And there weren’t 6 billions copies of Harry Potter printed so noone should ever read it. Good logic.
That is actually wrong.
Organic can yeild up to 30% more food per acre. That is tested by a few different agricultural universities.
So, there are some really nasty chemicals used in “conventional” farming.
These chemicals, which can be carcinogens, hormone distruptors and bio-accumulators leach through the soil, and get into our water supplies. This chemical effluents can seriously disrupt ecosystems (of which YOU are a part of). These chemicals find their way into our foods and can poison us over the long run.
The main point is that we don’t know exactly what the long term affects are, so why are we doing it?
What about chemical companies ripping farmers off?
Mos of these fertilizers and pesticides are not necessary, but in the 50′s they had to keep the chemical companies from the war operating, so they started marketing these chemicals to farmers.
Instead of paying hard working people, they replaced human jobs with sprays that don’t really do their job.
While there are “eco-ripoffs”, there are A LOT more rip offs out there that you should be pissed about.
The problem is that all of what you said was untrue.
Pesticides are extremely useful in agriculture, increasing crop yields massively.
Non-organic food is much cheaper than organic food, simply because more of it can be made in practice.
At least in the west there are strict regulations about chemicals and their release into the environment.
Long term effects? Those only come as a result of prolonged short term effects, which are non-existent. That feeble excuse can be used against anything
“Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M’s School of Natural Resources and Environment”
What’s not true? it’s easy to say something isn’t true when you don’t research it.
By the way, pesticides don’t know the difference between a bug and your body.
That is utterly meaningless, since it says nothing about why there were differences in yields. It just states production “could double or triple” without explanation. What does “could” mean? What were average yields, not the peak yields?
I would be very interested in reading the study to find out what it’s all about. Could you link it to me?
Pesticides don’t know the difference between a bug and my body, but they don’t need to, since I am millions of times more massive.
I agree the sentence doesn’t stand for itself, but it was the introduction to a much larger body of work, and I can only post 500 characters or something on this thing. Youtube doesn’t let me put links on commments.
Just google : organic farming yeilds, or organic farming Christos Vasilikiotis, Ph.D, he has a great essay about farming methods.
Most good farmers will tell you they don’t grow plants, they grow soil. That is the foundation. Organic farming is better for the soil. Period.
And you may be bigger than a bug, but how much produce have you eaten over your lifetime? It’s called accumulation, and bio-accumulation. That is a scientific fact. It’s building up in us, as we are on top of the food chain. It’s turning human breast milk toxic. Google that too.
And what if i am wrong? What are the consequences? A lighter pocket book?
Now, what if you are wrong? What are the consequences? Cancer? Our food chains owned by coorporations?
How do you want ot hedge your bet?
There was also no evidence for years that smoking caused cancer. If big companies who have no system of guilt or conscience are in the game, human lives are discarded for the profit “bottom line”. It’s the way they set up the economy. It’s not for you or me to live happy lives, it’s so certain shareholders can have a larger number on a bank ledger.
Organic isn’t just about you, it’s about clean drinking water, farm worker rights, and healthy ecosystems, of which humans forget we are a part of.
Soil being inanimate, I don’t see how that would matter.
I’ll check it out, though.
Soil is the furthest thing from inanimate! How can something that is so dynamic, and filled so so many thousands of microbes and decomposing agents be inanimate? Soil is a dynamic organism. If you google the TED video ’6 Ways Mushrooms will save the earth’, the gentleman talks about the complex nutrient systems in soils, among other cool things.
I think it’s often misconceptions like that that prevent the general public from understanding what really goes on in farming.
Yes, yes, but you say that organic farming is better for the soil.
We don’t care how well the soil does as long as we get good yields. Which is what happens with non-organic farming, and which is why it is by far the most used.
The rats are jumping ship.
CHEMRISK – a research company hired by the Corn Refiners has recently taken down it’s YouTube page.
The removal was in response to negative public perception resulting from the high-fructose corn syrup ad campaign. Apparently it has become a liability to defend the sweetener.
See one of the last remaining ChemRisk videos at CornRefinersAssoc on YouTube.