The Effect of Organic Food

The Effect of Organic Food

Is Organic food just a fad or a buzzword? This family doesn’t eat organic food because it costs more than conventional food and it just isn’t convenient.
The Experiment.
For the next two weeks this family decided to eat only organic and measure the effect.
Before they begin, the family takes urine samples and discover they have a number of insecticides, fungicides and plant growth regulators inside their bodies.

Chloremequat chloride

They are not too happy when they discover they’ve not only been eating pesticides, but that these chemicals have taken up residence inside their bodies. So they clear the cupboards and switch to organic for this fascinating 2-week experiment.

At the end of the two weeks, they tested their urine again and discovered that nearly all traces of the pesticides had completely vanished. Watch the video and share the news! Visit us at or

8 thoughts on “The Effect of Organic Food”

  1. honestly, YOU DO NOT NEED to have a research or study, to come up with this final conclusion…. humans have been eating Natural organic FOOD for millions of years… and it is part of nature,… we are part of nature….. of course it's going to be HEALTHY………. so what the big business pharma and agriculture companies are doing is monetizing it into BIG PROFITS.
    all they want is big profits…. so if they produce food for lower costs, they will come up with a scheme and do it,
    and then market that as something MORE nutritious etc… more bullshit.

    and now after 40yrs of bullshit, and completely wiping out organic food off the supermarket, for lower cost GMO foods,

    people have finallly embraced organic food, no matter what the price is. EATING to die slowly isn't as good as EATING to stay alive.


  3. I would prefer to eat the organic foods instead of the regular. This way I lower my risk. I also found organic food seems to taste better. I am sure it is not my imagination. I am very critical about what I eat and how it is prepared.

  4. You folks defending pesticides are missing the point. Actually, several. 
    (1) The video illustrates an experiment to get you thinking, not a controlled study. Wouldn't a controlled study be nice?
    (2) Pesticide residue effect in the human body is unknown over the long term. We're guinea pigs. I don't like being an unwitting experimental animal. Do you? 
    (3) Pesticides aren't applied properly by many farmers, including those in countries with supposedly stringent regulations, such as the US. Or the regulations are "regulated" by the mega-farm lobby. For example, in Florida, EPA standards are enforced by the Florida Dept. of Agriculture (which has a mandate to promote Florida's agricultural business). Are EPA standards enforced? Of course not. (Source: Farmworker Justice Fund, Washington, DC)
    (4) Beyond pesticides, other dangerous chemicals are used in fields. For example, in 2008 methyl iodide (a soil fumigant) was approved by the G.W. Bush-era EPA over the protest of many scientists, including five Nobel Prize winners. They noted that methyl iodide is a "extremely well-known cancer hazard" and its high volatility and water solubility would "guarantee substantial releases to air, surface waters and ground waters." Studies have proven them correct.
    (5) Pesticides are routinely sprayed onto or near enough to farm workers that they are regularly inhaled (See: Candelario vs Ag-Mart, Florida, 3/21/08). Now, that's not residue ingestion, but an example of callous disregard for health and safety. Do you think Big Ag's "anything for money" attitude and practice ends with farm workers? That it doesn't extend to you? If you do, your brain's addled by bias. Or perhaps by pesticides :)-

  5. This looks to me like a misleading study. At least the way the study is used in marketing.

    Why wasn't organic pesticides tested as well? What's the point of testing for synthetic pesticides only? Of course we can expect to find less synthetic pesticides in products that don't use synthetic pesticides. That doesn't mean there are no pesticides involved at all.

    This study is not only troublesome because it gives the appearance that organic crops don't use pesticides at all, which is completely wrong. The only difference is that the source of organic pesticides are not synthetic. Since organic pesticides are less efficient compared to synthetic pesticides, it requires more of it to achieve the same level of crop efficiency, which may lead to higher pesticide exposure for consumers.

    Why isn't this mentioned?
    Why isn't it mentioned that there are plenty of organic pesticides that have been banned because they are linked to health risks?
    Why isn't it mentioned in the video that the actual study clearly states that all levels of pesticides before switching to organic food were "well below levels associated with risk"?
    Why isn't it properly mentioned that the only risk illustrated in study is merely due to the precautionary principle, ie. "we don't know enough and therefore we should be cautious"?

    The whole "organic is better" is just one big fallacy. And videos such as this one really shows us how the organic business is trying to exploit people's lack of knowledge and appeal to the naturalistic fallacy.

Comments are closed.