Organic Food, GMOs & The Dirty Dozen - The Unexpected Truth

This podcast is brought to you by Podcast Nation. So strawberries are one that's like always at the top of the list and you'd have to eat. It's like 400 and some servings like a day to reach a potentially harmful level of pesticides based on the highest level of pesticides ever found by the USDA on strawberries. So like it's just ridiculous to be scaring consumers over these pesticide residues. Welcome to Wellness Fact vs. Fiction. I'm Dr. Danielle Bollardo and I'm a cardiologist who loves evidence-based medicine and nutrition science. But as a millennial, I've watched endless wellness fads take over social media. It's my mission to get to the bottom of things by bringing on the top expert physicians and scientists to help us determine what is fact vs. fiction when it comes to your health. It's time to leave the pseudoscience behind and become empowered when it comes to our wellness. Hey everyone, I am so excited to bring you to you today's episode featuring everyone's favorite food scientist Aaron who's widely known on social media as food science babe. Not to be confused with the food babe. And if you've heard of the food babe, you will definitely know the difference. Aaron has a bachelor's in chemical engineering from the University of Minnesota. She's worked in the food industry for 10 plus years in both conventional and natural organic sectors as an engineer and food scientist. Through her popular social media accounts as the food science babe, Aaron dispels myths about the food industry using a science based approach. In this episode, we discuss all things controversial regarding organic versus conventional produce, the truth about pesticides in both conventional and organic farming. We explain what are GMOs and a deep dive into the EWG's the dirty doesn't and so, so, so much more. So let's get into it. Hi everyone, I am so excited to be here with Aaron today. Aaron thank you so much for joining the podcast to talk about this very hot and controversial topic of organic versus non organic conventional birds and vegetables. And I'm so thankful you're here. Yeah, thanks for having me on. So tell everyone a little bit about you and what you do is you're one of my favorite science communicators on social media. And just I'd love for everyone to get a little background from you about how you got there and what you do. Yeah, so I've a BS in chemical engineering from the University of Minnesota. I've worked more on a food scientist role now for a little over 10 years in different segments of the food industry. So I've been in the conventional ingredients sector. I've been in organic most of like the product development work I've done is in kind of like the snacks and cereal products. So that's kind of what I've been doing for the past 10 years when I had my daughter about six years ago, I ended up starting to do more like consulting work. So I could stay home with her. So just working part time still doing product development work, but in 2017, 2018, I was just really getting annoyed with all of the misinformation on social media, just regarding food, like food processing. And always by people that have never worked in the food industry and I was just getting so annoyed with it, especially after becoming a mom and just realizing like how much of the fear based marketing is targeted towards moms of young children. And so I just decided to start my page in 2018 and I had no idea like where it was going to go, but people apparently were interested in what I had to say in my expertise and everything. So yeah, just kind of grew from there. I appreciate your page. I've learned so much from you. I always say, you know, can't be an expert in everything and a lot of my podcasts. It's like every episode I'm like admitting, you know, something else that I fell for as well, because you just there's some things that like clean beauty or various different things that you just you assume at baseline or better for you are healthier for you. And one of those for me was certainly organic food. I certainly always felt like it just must be better for you. And so I would love to start out with if you could just do some definitions for everyone, like what is organic versus what are GMOs and what kind of is just if you can give you even just the foundation of some of the terminology that we hear day to day. I will say to that I also used to believe a lot of these things too and you know 10, 15 years ago, I believe organic was better. So a lot of the stuff that I post about to is really, you know, based on biases that I eventually questions. So that's amazing. So organic a lot of times I say it's a marketing label. However, there are regulations regarding the organic the USDA certified organic label. You can look them up on the USDA. It's actually on their marketing their agricultural marketing website. So there are regulations regarding you know farming practices specific ingredients that aren't allowed in foods specific farming practices that that can and can't be used. The ones that I think people are the most aware of are probably you know that they can't use GMOs they you know animals can't eat feed with GMOs. There's different additives that aren't allowed. There's different pesticides that aren't allowed. And a lot of times these things sound good to the consumer. You know it's like oh they have to use more natural pesticides and of course that sounds good to the consumer. But they're basically not allowed all of the tools in the toolbox that you know conventional farmers can use because basically they're only allowed a subset of pesticides. So it's really based on the appeal to nature fallacy which ones are allowed and which ones aren't allowed so they might not be able to use a synthetic one that might be you know less toxic. So they're not allowed to use the environment and they just wouldn't be able to use it because it's not considered to be natural. So a lot of the regulations and restrictions regarding organic you know that's kind of why I say it is a marketing label because it's all of these things sound good to the consumer. It's more for it but what the consumer thinks they are getting is something safer something more nutritious a lot of people buy it because they think it's better for the environment and none of those things are true like that label doesn't mean any of those things so yes there are regulations yes there are you know it does mean something but it doesn't mean what most consumers are buying it for so. I got you and so when people say GMO what does that refer to and what's the difference between that and the regulations on you know non organic produce yeah so GMO is a term that I don't like because it's not a scientific term so it stands for genetically modified organism but it's confusing because virtually all modern day crops have been genetically modified in some way. And they've defined GMO to only mean these more modern ways of modifying crops which are more efficient they affect fewer genes they're much more regulated and there's nothing about these more modern techniques that are used to modify crops that make the crop. You know inherently less safe and like I said they're they're regulated to so much more of an extent than crops that are not considered GMO and like I said I mean we've been modifying crops for thousands of years you know via crossbreeding all these other different methods and so it is a bit arbitrary what is considered to be GMO. A lot of the things that people associate with GMOs like aren't even necessarily something that only has to do with GMOs and a lot of those things to are just based on the fact that they are regulated so much more and so you know just larger companies tend to be the ones developing these things because they take an average of like I think it's something like 13 years and 130 million dollars to develop a new GMO and so it's like. You know I have issues regarding the regulations and how they are so much more regulated but just the fact that a food is a GMO doesn't mean anything it doesn't it doesn't you know mean it's less safe less nutritious you know there's tons of studies that have been done on them and they're just this safe and nutritious as their non GMO counterparts so yeah that that one the non GMO label is for sure a fear based marketing label because it just. It tends to make consumers assume that GMOs are bad and I need to buy these things that are non GMO when that's really not the case at all. That's really helpful especially because yeah the the marketing is so profound I mean you can't go anywhere without seeing it marketed so you just assume that it's healthier you assume that it's better without really understanding what's going on in the mix I love how you always remind everyone it's the dose that makes the poison so. Can you kind of discuss that concept and how that applies to this kind of you know debate that goes back and forth and also explain how I think probably a lot of people listening don't realize that organic produce. does use pesticides. Yeah, so that's one of the things like the dirty dozen is something I cover. Yes, can you please also I'm going to have to have you go into the dirty dozen as well. So yeah, I mean that ties into the dose makes the poison. I mean the biggest misconception there is people think that organic doesn't use pesticides which is not true. Pesticides are not a bad thing when they're used, you know, correctly they can help to increase efficiency which can help to reduce the amount of land that we need to grow food. So these are, you know, a necessary tool to be able to grow enough food for everybody. And so yes, organic, organic farms face similar pest pressures as conventional farms. They require pesticides. There are going to be pesticide residues on both conventional and organic. And the thing that is frustrating about the dirty dozen is that they're reporting, you know, what they say are the 12 dirtiest foods, but what they're not telling you is that they're basically taking the USDA data that they take. They they test for pesticide residues and they make sure that they are below the tolerance levels that have been set. And you know, year after year, it consistently shows that pesticide residues are hundreds of times below these already conservatively set tolerance levels. Well, they take that data and they just say, well, this one has more. So this is going to be on our, you know, on our dirty dozen list. And it doesn't make any sense because it's like even if it does have a little bit more or an extra, you know, pesticide, they count like the number of pesticides which doesn't make any sense because they're not at all comparing it to the, you know, crop specific pesticide tolerance levels. And so it doesn't make any sense. Our entire food supply is very safe from a pesticide residue perspective. And I've shared a graphic that just shows like how many servings you'd have to eat every single day. And you'd have to eat like hundreds to thousands of servings of these fruits and vegetables every single day for like an extended period of time to get to a potentially harmful level of pesticide. So that is just one thing where I mean, that's, that's how organic has marketed, you know, that's, that's a lot of organic marketing and then consumers just believe it, they repeat it and that's how they get you to pay more for organic foods. But in reality, you don't need to be afraid of pesticide residues on organic or conventional. So for the dirty dozen, which I get asked about all the time, you do such a great job. Like you just mentioned explaining why it's not that EWG is not a reliable resource and how the dirty dozen is just a fear mongering factor. Can you give an example of some of the doses of vegetables you said that you would need to consume in order to reach any dose that would be relevant for any sort of arm? Yeah, so strawberries are one that's like always at the top of the list and you'd have to eat it's like 400 and some servings like a day to reach a potentially harmful level of pesticides based on the highest level of pesticides ever found by the USDA on strawberries. So like it's just ridiculous to be scaring consumers over these pesticide residues, especially when most Americans are not getting enough servings of fruits and vegetables in the first place. And you know, I always just go into like it's not just like oh whatever that's false in focal cares. Like it is harmful as well because you know there are many people that don't have access to organic, you know, whether they their store just doesn't sell it or they can't afford it. And so then they are stuck thinking like oh all I have access to is this conventional produce and it has toxic levels of you know pesticide residues. So there have been studies done that show that they end up just buying less produce overall because of this false information about pesticide residues. So it is harmful. I mean even when I believed it in the past two like if I went to the store and there weren't any organic strawberries or they didn't look very good, you know like I just wouldn't buy strawberries because I was too afraid to buy the conventional. So it can be very harmful all of this false information regarding pesticide residues too. So interesting and touching on the health aspect because there's like some interesting nuance here too. So there's only two major studies with hard end points looking at pesticide and traditional produce. There's one's bribe barrier which is published in 2014 and one is Baudery published in 2018. And so when you do a meta analysis, summative analysis on the outcomes, the results were null. There was no difference in hard outcomes if eating organic versus non-organic. And so what's interesting is that even though I always say I'm the podcast listener, this is we always make recommendations based on the best available evidence to date. And so the nuance being you know we never know what will change with future research if we find something different etc. But the data we do actually have with our hard outcomes at this point are those two studies I mentioned and we don't have a difference in health outcomes. So if someone's listening and they're saying well I would rather just spend the money for organic anyway because I may like if they can afford it and they're like I may as well just to be safe. I would actually counter that with if you could explain how organic also uses pesticides because I think people don't realize that. Yeah I mean I think I think it's fine like if people want to and they're not doing it because they're afraid of conventional. You know I think that's where the harm can come in you know leading to potentially like disordered eating you know thinking like all you know this other stuff is going to harm me. But yeah I mean if somebody just wants to buy organic that's fine I would say the better safe than sorry isn't you know the evidence doesn't show that it is safer and there are there are a few meta analyses that are comparing the actual like nutritional value of organic versus conventional and you know there isn't a significant difference in the nutritional value like the the variations are you know what you would see within conventional and organic and between you know just different seasons different places where they're grown there really isn't a difference and you know the ones that you mentioned too you know even if you did see a difference you also have to understand like the demographic of people that can afford organic obviously they probably have better access to better you know health care they probably have more time to work out to cook to eat healthy. So a lot of that stuff too is frustrating when you know even if the study did show that there were better health outcomes it's like yeah but I mean people that can afford organic also there's all these other things that go into it as well so yeah. And there's no standard for organic correct other than you not using synthetic pesticides but organic farming uses a lot of what's considered natural pesticides i.e. they use copper based pesticides, Neem oil and since they're considered quote-unquote natural they're actually poorly regulated which actually reminds me the parallel I compare to as the supplement industry because people often think supplements are safer than FDA regulated you know guideline based medical therapies that go through these rigorous randomized controlled trials just because supplements are natural when in reality you know similar to here so they're considered natural and even though natural pesticides like copper based pesticides or Neem oil those are certainly toxic to humans at certain doses and levels as well and poorly regulated and less effective I've read some data that shows that there are sometimes these natural pesticides are actually used in even larger amounts in organic farming and could be possibly you know just because they could be less effective and so I don't even think that we have evidence that shows that the safe and sorryly method is even applicable and I totally support like listen if someone wants to get organic go for it if you want to eat conventional go for it if you want to eat frozen go for it but I think that there's even reason why there's nuance in this discussion overall. Yeah I would say I mean they're all pesticides are going to be regulated but like you said like you know if there is a specific synthetic counterpart to something that organic farmers can only use the natural one it could be the case that yeah it's less effective they have to use more of it copper based pesticides are more persistent in the environment so yeah I mean as far as that goes and that's where it just goes back to the appeal to nature and like they're only allowed to use certain ones not because it's necessarily better for the environment or you know they can use less of it it's just the fact that no that's not approved because it's not natural so from a consumer perspective like I definitely wouldn't say like it's you know less safe correct right but but also that USDA pesticide data they actually don't they don't actually test for a lot of these natural pesticides yeah I mean I think just the biggest thing to understand is that like our food is very safe from a pesticide residue perspective and any messaging you're seeing out there of people saying like it's toxic because of pesticides like you know they either don't know what they're talking about or they're trying to sell you something because that's just not true. Okay, so if you don't mind discussing glyphosate because that is a monsanto and all of that because that is obviously a big trigger for this world of pure mongering. I've posted about that a lot. It's so controversial when it really shouldn't be. I mean a lot of it is just based on the media and people, you know, I'm not saying monsanto is a great company but at the same time like they're not even the largest manufacturer of glyphosate anymore. But so people have a really hard time like separating the two things and if you don't like monsanto that's fine but they have to be looking at the actual evidence when it comes to glyphosate which is actually one of the safest herbicides that's available to farmers today. It has been able to replace much more harsh pesticides so like, you know, net effect for the environment. It has been positive and I know a lot of times two people associate like GMO means glyphosate but, you know, GMOs, they are, you know, a bunch of different traits that are being selected for when you're creating a new, you know, genetically modified crop and so there are a handful that yes they can tolerate glyphosate. That doesn't mean that there's just like copious amounts of glyphosate being, you know, like sprayed onto fields. It's like two pop cans worth on, you know, a field. I don't know like twice a year. Like it's a very small amount and the actual amounts that, you know, again, end up on our foods are you'd have to be eating hundreds of servings and so a day hundreds of servings a day. Yeah, a day. Yeah. And so, you know, I've even taken the data from the EWG and they tend to set their sort of arbitrary safety levels so like, I looked into when they were testing all these oat products, which by the way, like they're sending these products and do a lab. These aren't peer reviewed, you know, data but like let's just pretend that it is correct. I've even done the calculations with the data that they've collected and again, you'd have to, I mean, I did the one with Cheerios a while ago and a 30 pound child would have to eat like a thousand bowls of Cheerios a day to reach a potentially harmful amount of glyphosate. And the EWG is scaring consumers. Again, like scaring parents, I mean, that's like how they get people's attention is to say, you know, you can tell because a lot of the foods are testing are like kids foods and they're trying to get parents attention. Like these foods are harmful for your children, but they basically took the already very conservatively set reference dose that has been set for glyphosate and they just divided it by 100 so that they could say like all these foods we tested are over the safety level that we set, but like their safety level was just like an arbitrary number. Like, it didn't even make any sense. And so that got a ton of attention. I mean, that comes, I mean, I see that like every year come back into the news like Cheerios oats and glyphosate and it's just like, if anything, this data is showing us like how safe our food is because every time they're like even when they're presenting their own data and saying like you should be afraid of this, like you do the actual calculation and it's like, no, this is actually showing us that it's still within like very safe levels and our food is very safe. And then you just have the information about like, I mean, the lawsuits with glyphosate and you know, I'm always reminding people that a lawsuit isn't necessarily based on the science and even pesticide applicators that are using glyphosate at, you know, high doses being exposed to it, different exposure routes, you know, not just consuming it. Of course, there are different precautions. They need to take when they're spraying it, but there's still isn't a, you know, a link between even the people that use it at the highest amounts and cancer, but it's just frustrating when people even use that data and then like try to say like, oh, it causes cancer in foods and it's like, even if it did show that it caused cancer like in pesticide applicators and farmers and stuff, like that doesn't mean that the very, very low levels in foods cause cancer and there's a ton of data on this and it's basically, you know, a global scientific consensus at this point that the parts for billion levels in foods are not caused cancer. So that's one thing that I'm pumpkin all the time. Yeah, I think it's super important too, because you know, I always was, I was previously buying organ again. Now, even now to this day, like if it's convenient for me to go to Whole Foods, like because of my work schedule or whatever, I will and I'll buy organic, but if I'm near, you know, a different grocery store like an Albuton's or something that I'll go there, to me, I actually don't particular seek out either, but I will say that I did previously seek out organic for sure. And what was interesting to me is that I always like, never thought in my head, like we're all of our nutrition guidelines and I talk a lot about guidelines and expert consensus on my podcast because I know one person, I think is smart enough to make all the decisions for health or grade or praise evidence, scientific evidence on their own. And so when I thought about all of our nutrition guidelines, especially in cardiology or the, you know, cancer, things like that, I was, when I started to realize that the data isn't show organic as healthier, I was thinking, wait, that makes sense. It's never made it into any of our medical guidelines to recommend organic over conventional produce. It's because the data isn't there. To the other controversial topic and I actually don't know much about this at all and I would love for you to teach me and our listeners is regarding the, the workers because that's a big argument that people have is that the people who work with glyphosate and who work in conventional farming are more at harm. Can you discuss that because I actually don't know much about this topic at all, but I know it's a one that's a big, a hot one. Yeah, and I, I, I've gotten that argument as well, like people will say I buy organic for the farm workers and stuff, but I mean, so again, organic uses pesticides to proper safety precautions, PPE, like just once again, just because their natural pesticides doesn't mean that they're safer for the farm workers either. So of course, there are definitely issues with that, but I wouldn't say that it's like more so on conventional than organic. I mean, organic has the same opportunity to exploit, you know, farm workers, whether it be like not providing the correct PPE. There's actually more of an opportunity on organic farms to exploit farm workers as far as like physical labor because there's, you know, there's just more like hand, weeding and picking and all that kind of stuff. So there could be even more of an opportunity on organic farms. So, you know, I've even looked to see if there's like data on this and it's, it's, there really isn't, but just understanding how, how they both use pesticides, how the same safety precautions need to be taken on both types of farms. I wouldn't say that that is true, that it's like, oh, I know if I'm buying organic, that's better for the farm workers. Like that's not, that's not necessarily the case. It seems like, it seems like what you're saying is that safety precautions and fair work conditions, safe work conditions, healthy work conditions are needed and across the board, regardless of the type of farming and that we don't have data to indicate ones better than the other at this point, but that both, both groups need work. Right. Exactly. Yeah. So that's super interesting. So the other thing I want to touch on was the environmental portion because, yeah, we hear that a lot and what's interesting is that organic farming has far more utrophic, tential, so much more land used. And as we mentioned, the, uh, pesticides use are not as strong, essentially. And so maybe not, maybe not as effective. So they're using far more land, more utrophic potential. But can you kind of delve into the myths about the environment benefits of organic versus conventional? Yeah. I mean, that's another reason why a lot of people buy organic. I mean, that was one of the reasons I did in the past because I thought it was better for the environment, but the biggest reason why it's actually, you know, not, and in some cases, a lot worse is because of the land use. I mean, it uses so much more land to grow the same amount of food. I mean, the fact that they don't allow for GMOs as well, which can be used to increase efficiency and actually decrease pesticide usage overall. Yeah. Is another reason why it just, it isn't better for the environment. And it just again, goes back to the field to nature. All those things are based off of what sounds good to the consumer. But the end result is something that isn't better for the environment. And in, in many cases, is worse. And so I think that is one thing that consumers don't really realize. And it is a reason why a lot of people buy organic. But I've seen statistics, you know, up to like 40 organic might use up to 40% more land than conventional. And so I mean, really, it's it just all of the, you know, the, these regulations are really just based on ideology. And, you know, I think when organic started, obviously they didn't have the data. And maybe they thought, hey, this might be better. But we have a lot of data now. And that's just not what it shows. Yeah, because I think that a lot of people believe that with the environment. And although you're right, that, although that may have been the initial intention. It hasn't hand out quite that way. And so it is really interesting. That was a huge revelation for me to learn as well. So going back to the dirty dozen, 'cause this is everyone's favorite topic. So can you explain what the EWG is? Because I think a lot of people don't realize that it's not an evidence-based resource, 'cause they kind of promote themselves as an authority in this space. And I think that I don't blame anyone. I've been ICE's a comfort authority bias. We all have. And so I don't blame anyone for believing the EWG, but can you kind of explain a little background on the EWG? And then we can get back into the dirty dozen. I have a few more questions about that, Drew. - Yeah, so the environmental working group, so they're a nonprofit organization. They are largely funded by the organic industry. I mean, that information is right on their website. You can see like the organic companies that fund them. And so they are very biased. And you can just tell with like everything, I mean, the dirty dozen is trying to get consumers to buy organic because that's who they're being funded by. And that's how they get funding. The frustrating thing too is like to get attention. It just seems like they need to create like these scary headlines. Or the dirty dozen is so catchy, so easy for consumers to read and like, "Oh, okay, I can avoid these. "I'll make sure I buy these organic." So a lot of times to like, even if there is like a small sliver of truth to like something, it's like way blown out of proportion because it's like they're just trying to get attention. You know, it gets shared in the media and then you actually go look at the data and it's like, that's not really like what it shows. So it's just frustrating because they do get so much attention and really like their entire goal is to get consumers to buy more food products that are organic. Right, and it's interesting because they, because being funded by the organic industry, obviously that's the financial incentive. And you know, whenever we talk about industry funded research versus, you know, versus NIH funded research and we talk about medical research and nutrition science research, I actually am not someone that hates on anything that's industry funded or anything that like, I actually just, you know, you wanna look at the study, you wanna look at the methods, you wanna look at the outcomes and look at the actual validity of the study before you make your judgment. Industry funding is just a part of things. But what's different about this versus looking at industry funded study is that this is just a organic funded organization. Therefore, their quote unquote recommendations are based in that funding. - Yeah, and I would never use that argument, you know, on its own to say like, oh, don't, you know, don't listen to them, they're funded. But I just feel like that's, a lot of people ask the question like, well, what's their purpose? Like, why are they doing this? And then that's when I get into like, well, you know, they're funded by these companies, they're trying to get consumers of our organic. But yeah, I agree with you. I would never just say like, oh, don't listen to what they say because they're funded by their organic. I mean, that's on top of the fact that like, you look at what, you know, the data that they're presenting and it's like, no, I mean, I can debunk it based on that. But in addition to that, this is why they're doing it. - Yeah, so it makes sense. That background's important. I didn't even realize all those things about that they are funded by an organic, mostly funding. And I had no idea. I just thought it was this like, you know, non-biased environmental work. - Yeah, I used to think so too. - Yeah. - That's just like looking out for help. And then you realize like when you peel back the layers, it's totally not unbiased. - Yeah. - So the dirty dozen, so for anyone listening, they do not need to fear the fruits and vegetables in the dirty dozen, you're saying. No, like I said, I mean, all of our produce is very safe from a pesticide residue perspective. There's no reason to be buying those, you know, organic versions. And in reality, it might just, you know, cause you to eat less produce overall, which is, you know, not going to be good. So is there any data on like fruits lasting longer if they're organic versus conventional? Or no, is there no difference? - No, I think that more so has to do with like, I know, you know, I'm sure in some places like organic farms are maybe farther away. So once it gets to the grocery store, like, you know, there might be certain places where it's like, oh, the organic always looks worse or there could be places where it always looks better, depending on how much you know. Most of that is going to have to do with like, how far it has to be shipped to the store, how long, you know, sometimes also organic isn't being sold as quickly at the store. So, you know, you might notice that that maybe looks worse in your store. But it's not because it's organic. It's just because like the distance from the farm to the store or how long it's been sitting in the store. - Gotcha, that makes sense. And I'm glad you touched on the research showing there's no significant difference in nutrient composition, quality, quantity, et cetera, in various different organic first conventional produce. And I think that that's another myth too, because I think people think that the organic for even besides the idea of cancer or, you know, people say, life estate causes things in children like autism and there's there attached me to various different issues which have are clearly have not panned out in the data. But there also is the idea that the nutrients are more preserved or more, the nutrients are just more well retained in organic. Can you explain why that's not the case? - Yeah, like I said, there are a few meta analyses that show like, you know, the variation is not significant and you would see the same variation within organic, you know, grown in different places or conventional. So it's really not like, oh, you know, all of the organic is more nutritious than all the conventional. Like, no, I mean, I think the message there is just make sure you're eating some vegetables, whether they're organic or conventional. You know, like when I say not a significant amount to like, even if there was a certain nutrient that was a little bit more, it's like you could literally eat like one more conventional strawberries and it would be like, okay, that makes up for the difference. So, but no, there's not a clear significant difference between the two and so it just, it doesn't make much sense if you're paying more because you think you're getting something more nutritious or safer or better for the environment because that's not what that label is indicating. And I think also super important to reiterate on the same token is that, 'cause I know you emphasize this and I do too is that I don't think people also realize that frozen fruit and frozen vegetables are just as nutritious as fresh. And I think that every time I tell a patient that they're like, oh my goodness, what? They're so excited to hear that. And I would love if you could explain that as well. - Yeah, sometimes actually they can be more nutritious because they're frozen, you know, shortly after being picked and so like I said, you know, if your grocery store if something is on the shelf for longer, like frozen can actually be more nutritious and I think that's one thing too that, you know, you always hear like always by fresh, you know, and it's like, well, no, you can definitely by frozen, you can also buy canned. I mean, as long as you're getting fruits and vegetables, like there's no reason why, and again, that goes along with the access issue as well. A lot of people just don't have access to fresh myself. I buy a lot of frozen just because I end up throwing so much away if I'm buying fresh. And so I'll use frozen and, you know, smoothies, stuff like that. And I actually tend to eat more that way and I tend to throw less away. So it helps with food waste as well. - I actually have, so I, you know, as you know, I'm vegan, so I tons of fruits and vegetables. But I have a continuous supply of frozen berries, like continuous, like I actually find that sometimes I even just prefer them. I think having frozen fruits and vegetables is, first of all, it is more affordable. And it is, as we just imagine, you could be even more nutritious. And it's such a great way, especially for someone that's transitioning their diet and can't quite figure out what their supply that they're gonna need is because sometimes you may overvi and then people may feel like, "Oh, I wasted so much money on fruits and vegetables that went bad this week." And so it's like a surefire way to buy lots of fruits and vegetables and feel like not worried about them going to waste 'cause they can last longer. - Yeah, I definitely started doing more of that during COVID too, like, - Yeah. - Not going to the grocery store as often. - Really? - So I started buying so, you know, much more frozen vegetables and stuff. And I was like, I'm actually wasting a lot less this way. So I've just started doing that more, yeah. - Totally. - Okay, so the other thing I wanted to ask you about, which I also don't know, I haven't done deep dives into this and I know you have is, can you kind of explain the Monsanto situation and why this has been such a huge controversy and topic for anyone that's not familiar with it? - I mean, I think, yeah, I mean, there's a lot of different things that get brought up when people talk about Monsanto, but it's a company that created Roundup, right? Is that the. - Yeah, well, yeah, they're actually, they got bought by Bayer. So they actually don't even, Monsanto doesn't even technically exist anymore, but yeah, they were the makers of Roundup, which is now off at me. So they're not even the largest manufacturer of life with state anymore, but when people make arguments against food, it's always like big egg, big food. I mean, I think it's just the lawsuits have definitely, I think brought it into, you know, whenever anyone is talking about, pesticides and they don't, you know, they don't really know what they're talking about. They'll always bring up life. That's the one that's in the news. And like I said, it's just crazy to me because it's like, it is one of the safest herbicides available. And so it's just, but yeah, I mean, I think it just goes along with like, you know, obviously people associate it with GMOs. And like I said, because GMOs are regulated so much more, it's almost like the consumer misconceptions and fears, which are making these things more regulated, are causing them to really only be developed and owned by these large companies when in reality, like if we didn't, you know, fear GMOs so much and they weren't as regulated, you know, smaller companies could get into the game and create GMOs. But yeah, I mean, I think Monsanto just gets associated with life is it round up GMOs, like, and I think people don't understand too, like seed companies, you know, like Bayer now, Monsanto before, they're also selling organics to like these companies aren't just selling GMOs. And that's another huge misconception with GMOs as well as that, you know, I hear a lot of different arguments like, well, I don't like them because they can be patented and then these big companies like own the patents and own the technology, which is true, but organics can be patented, hybrids can be patented, like seeds were patented far before GMOs were even a thing. And so I just think there's just a lot of misconceptions and it just goes back to like the big business like owning all these things, which I don't necessarily disagree with but it's not just, it's not just an issue that has to do with GMOs. I mean, these things are like I said, hybrids can be patented. That happened long before GMOs even existed. And so I just, yeah, and also like organic is a huge, is a huge, you know, these are huge companies that are selling organic too. So I just think there's this misconception of how like people think these organic companies are these just these like small family owned companies is like, no, I mean organic brands are huge like these, these corporations are just as big as conventional corporations. You know, companies that are selling conventional pesticides are selling organic pesticides too. So like there's not really like, it just doesn't make sense to single out one single pesticide and just but but again, it's because that one has been in the media so much and in the news so much. And so it was based on to the month, like all the the trials, the claims were based on cancer, diagnoses, people that worked with the campaign. Yeah. So does this break down to like as we discussed is like the companies essentially just being big companies that exploited their workers and maybe didn't have proper PPE and things like that. Yes, but also the evidence also doesn't show that it necessarily does cause. Wow. And you're having, you know, like those rulings aren't necessarily based on the evidence and this is something that has been studied a lot now and there's a there's a very large study. The I think it's the agricultural workers. I can't remember the title of it, but basically, you know, following farm workers that have used it for 10, 20 years and you know, there, there isn't a clear link between it and cancer and so people see these court cases and they, you know, they think it means like, oh, well, that means it does cause cancer because this person was awarded, you know, however much money, but that, you know, it's not necessarily based on the evidence. But yeah, that's why people specifically know about Monsanto and glazed tape. Yeah. So that's so interesting. So and just to reiterate, like you mentioned before, so organizations such as the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the European Commission, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment have concluded that there's no evidence that life of state poses a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans. Yep. You know, it always gets brought up to that like, oh, specific countries band it and stuff, but those countries are a part of that consensus as well. And a lot of times that stuff gets banned just because of consumer misconceptions, you know, politics, like all these different things, but those countries that have banded are also a part of that consensus saying that it is safe and it doesn't, you know, present a cancer risk. So yeah. Can you actually explain for any of our European listeners the differences in the the pesticides that are allowed in the US versus abroad? So sometimes like glyphosate, like I said, it, you know, is banned in some countries and just like food ingredients that I cover all of the time, it doesn't necessarily have to do with the science. A lot of it is political. You know, our regulatory processes are very similar. Sometimes there are discrepancies because the US tends to take more of a risk based approach, whereas Europe tends to take more of a hazard based approach. So they could potentially ban something based on hazard, whereas the US might approve it because the, you know, the doses that we use don't present, you know, a risk for them to ban it. So sometimes there are certain things that are banned in Europe and then the US, they're approved and they're just regulated so that there are, you know, as far as like food additives go, like they're regulated so that based on the doses, we know that they are at safe levels in foods, but it also goes the opposite way and you never hear that. Like you always hear this like banned in Europe and in Europe and it goes the other way too. I mean, Europe actually there are more food colors that are approved in Europe than in the US. And I would never say like, oh, that means that the food in Europe is less safe because there's more ingredients that are approved. Like that has nothing to do with the safety. It's just minor differences in the regulatory framework that allow certain things to be approved in one country versus another, but you can't just automatically say like, oh, this is bansome or therefore it is unsafe. That's not how it works. And a lot of times it comes down to, they just banned it because it presents a hazard. We approved it with regulations, understanding that the doses that are in foods are, you know, safe doses. But again, it goes the other way. We've banned some things that are approved there. So can you actually just briefly, that was so well said, can you briefly explain hazard versus risk for the difference with the different regulation with the US and Europe, the specific exercise? Yeah. So basically risk is hazard times exposure. So basically risk is taking into account the, you know, the amount of something that we are exposed to. And so obviously that's important if we're talking about something in food. I've talked about this so many times, but people will present evidence of specific additives, being linked to something like cancer at super high doses, you know, a lot of times it's in rodents and it's like, well, that's where that's where like you could say we're going to ban this because it's a hazard because in a hazard analysis, you're not taking the dose into account. Whereas if you're going to take the dose into account, you would say, well, yes, but we understand that at lower doses, you know, this is safe at the amounts that it's in food. So risk is just taking into account that exposure or the dose, whereas hazard is not such a nuanced and important discussion. I'm going to have to bring you back for a part two because we have to do an episode on food additives, ingredients and all the fear of ingering that goes into that. I wanted to do a specific organic episode, but you have so many incredibly high yield topics to cover that de-missed by this space that's filled with a lot of fear of ingering. So I'm going to have to make you come back for a part four. Yeah, definitely. Thank you so much for talking about this topic today. And I'm sure I'm going to actually, I'll make sure to put a bunch of question box up on our Instagram about this in case people have follow questions, but tell everyone where they can find you on social media and how they can follow all of your great science-based info. Yeah, so food science babe on, I'm on Instagram, not to be confused with the food. Not food babe. Very difficult. Very difficult. Opposite. Yeah. Food science babe. So I'm on Instagram, TikTok and Facebook. And then I have a Patreon as well if people want to support my work through that. So. And for anyone that has questions, follow up questions on organic when we post this episode on our wellness back versus fiction Instagram, I will make sure that we have a post to ask you guys what questions you have. And then if you have any questions on other topics, include science like food additives, like food coloring, like various different things, let us know as well because Aaron's also an expert on that. And we're going to bring you back for part two because this has been amazing. Yeah. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks for listening to this week's episode. I would love to keep bringing you all the latest health and wellness information and misinformation to debunk. So please do me a quick favor. leave a 5 star reading review and share with a friend. Make sure to leave a comment about which wellness bag you'd like to debunk next, and I'll get to the bottom of it. Follow me on Instagram @NeilBladoMD and our podcast page @WelnessFactsBersisFiction, and be sure to tune in next week.