Organic Foods No Healthier Than Ordinary Foods

[NoahideHiker]

Do you hold an opinion or a condition of wilful ignorance? I opine it to be the latter.

Oh bravo my good man! You certainly put me in my place. Well played! [golf clap]












































By the way, "wilful" is spelled willful. LOL!

 

[Oberon]

Of course it is healthier not to ingest all kinds of pesticides.

Plants have natural pesticides. The fruits and vegetables you eat contain naturally occuring carcinogens.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Plants have natural pesticides. The fruits and vegetables you eat contain naturally occuring carcinogens.

natural, exactly...

man made ones are being introduced into the eco system

to think natural ones are the same as man made ones is rather stupid.
That is like saying agent orange is the same as natural acidity found in some plants

 

[monta]

Organic food tastes better and local food is better for you because the nutrients haven't depleted.

 

[Oberon]

to think natural ones are the same as man made ones is rather stupid.

Wrong.
"Misconception No. 4: Synthetic Toxins Pose Greater Carcinogenic Risks Than Natural Toxins
The possible carcinogenic hazards from synthetic pesticide residues are minimal compared with the background of possible hazards of natural pesticides. By far the greater part of the chemicals we eat are natural." p. 164

Ames, Bruce N., and Lois Swirsky Gold. "Environmental Pollution and Cancer." in Foster, Kenneth R., David E. Bernstein, and Peter W. Huber (eds) Phantom Risk Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994.


For example, a carrot has 5.16 mg of the carcinogen Caffeic acid. An apple has almost four times that amount. Celery contains the carcinogen 8-Methoxypsoralen. And so on.

 

[Storm]

Regardless of the comparative dangers of natural and synthetic toxins, it's common sense that the less poison you eat, the better.

 

[Oberon]

Regardless of the comparative dangers of natural and synthetic toxins, it's common sense that the less poison you eat, the better.

Not necessarily. Fruits and vegetable contain potent carcinogens (both natural and residual), but at doses too low to do anything. You could eat them all day and it wouldn't affect you. And they are a great defense against cancer.

The point is, just about anything we eat contains dangerous toxic chemicals. Fortunately, we have evolved to be able to deal with these without harming us in the slightest. Fear of residual pesticides is just as irrational as being afraid to eat an organic apple.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Not necessarily. Fruits and vegetable contain potent carcinogens (both natural and residual), but at doses too low to do anything. You could eat them all day and it wouldn't affect you. And they are a great defense against cancer.

The point is, just about anything we eat contains dangerous toxic chemicals. Fortunately, we have evolved to be able to deal with these without harming us in the slightest. Fear of residual pesticides is just as irrational as being afraid to eat an organic apple.

apples are full of toxins, whether grown organic or not...

I coudl care less is something is more carcinogenic or not...
The simple fact is, man made pesticides screw with the natural balance of the ecosystem.... plants have been doing their thing for thousands if not millions of years...chemical companies have not

 

[Mr Cheese]

pesticides are greaaaat....:


ARE REGISTERED PESTICIDES SAFE? NO. Many of the "safety tests" used to test these products are fundamentally inadequate: they test for the acute (not chronic) effects of single (not multiple) chemicals on healthy (not sick, chemically sensitive or immuno-suppressed etc.) adult (not feta l or young) animal (not human) subjects exposed over short (not long) periods of time {10}. Some of the companies testing pesticides have been charged and convicted of falsifying residue and environmental studies that were used to support pesticide registration in the US and Canada {10}. Some pesticides become even more toxic as they break down. (In the US it is a violation of federal law to state that the use of pesticides is safe.)
Pesticides initiate and propagate multiple chemical sensitivities. About 16 million US citizens are sensitive to pesticides (i.e. they have compromised immune functioning as a result of pesticide exposure). {10}

BESIDES SENSITIVITY AND TOXICITY WHAT OTHER HEALTH RISKS ARE THERE?

• increased risk of leukemia
• cancers (lung, brain, testicular, lymphoma)
• increase in spontaneous abortions
• greater genetic damage
• decreased fertility
• liver and pancreatic damage
• neuropathy
• disturbances to immune systems (asthma/ allergies)
• increases in stillbirths {1}
• decreased sperm counts

WHAT ARE THE MAIN RISKS FOR CHILDREN?

• cancer: leukemia and brain cancer
• asthma and allergies
• polyneuritis with numbness and pain in lower limbs. {5}
• altered neurological functioning and long-lasting neuro-behavioral impairments. {10}
• birth defects
• neurotoxicity
• gangrene (tissue death) of the extremities

Pesticide Facts

Besides human health risks, pesticides also pose dangers to the environment. Non-target organisms can be severely impacted. In some cases where a pest insect normally has some controls from a beneficial insect predator or parasite, an insecticide application can kill both pest and beneficial. The control insect almost always takes longer to recover than the pest. Applications for adult mosquitoes, for example, may temporarily depress mosquito populations, but cause a larger population in the long run, by damaging controlling factors.

One of the earliest discovered problems in pesticide use was that pests can and do eventually evolve to become resistant to the chemicals. When sprayed with chemicals, most pests will be entirely susceptible. However, not all pests are killed; some with slight variations in their genetic make-up are resistant and therefore survive. Natural selection will ensure that the organisms with resistant genetic make-up survive, and eventually the pests will become entirely resistant to the pesticide. Unaware of how to deal with this problem, farmers often increase their use of pesticides, causing further problems. When resistance is not a problem, pesticides in general are highly effective for controlling pests if the other disadvantages are taken into account.
Pesticide - Dangers of Pesticides

 

[Storm]

Not necessarily. Fruits and vegetable contain potent carcinogens (both natural and residual), but at doses too low to do anything. You could eat them all day and it wouldn't affect you. And they are a great defense against cancer.

The point is, just about anything we eat contains dangerous toxic chemicals. Fortunately, we have evolved to be able to deal with these without harming us in the slightest. Fear of residual pesticides is just as irrational as being afraid to eat an organic apple.

I disagree.

Also...

apples are full of toxins, whether grown organic or not...

I coudl care less is something is more carcinogenic or not...
The simple fact is, man made pesticides screw with the natural balance of the ecosystem.... plants have been doing their thing for thousands if not millions of years...chemical companies have not

... as Mr Cheese rightly points out, avoiding poisons isn't the only reason to eat organic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For example, a carrot has 5.16 mg of the carcinogen Caffeic acid. An apple has almost four times that amount. Celery contains the carcinogen 8-Methoxypsoralen. And so on.

Which do you think has higher amounds of carcinogens?

- a carrot by itself
- a carrot sprayed with pesticides

Also, along with the direct health effects, spraying crops with chemical pesticides and fertilizers can create other problems, such as surface water contamination. And though investigation is still being done, one hypothesized cause of the "colony collapse disorder" that's currently ravaging honey bee populations is a newer class of pesticides that's gone into widespread use over the last decade or so.

 

[Oberon]

pesticides are greaaaat....:

Yes they are. I give you a academic source from one of the top cancer researchers in the US, and you give me an anti-pesticide website in return. Thanks, but I'll take the expert published by MIT press over Real Alternatives to Toxins in the Environment.

Moreover, pesticides allow for high-yield farming. Which means less of a carbon foot-print. Which means less impact on the environment. Natural pesticides used by humans are often more devastating to the environment (e.g. importing massive amounts of bugs to eat pests, which can alter the surrounding ecology).

Organic foods are not healthier. They have no more nutrition, nor are they safer. What's more, they are more expensive and they can have a larger negative impact on the environment because they need more space to produce the same amount.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Moreover, pesticides allow for high-yield farming. Which means less of a carbon foot-print. Which means less impact on the environment.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Pesticides have a significant carbon footprint themselves, so I don't know how you could be sure that use of pesticides represents a net decrease.

Actually, I'm not really sure how yield translates in a significant way into carbon footprint reduction. Off the top of my head, I would think that most carbon emissions from farming would be more proportional to volume of crops produced than to the land area used. Why do you say that high-yield farming has less of a carbon footprint?

Natural pesticides used by humans are often more devastating to the environment (e.g. importing massive amounts of bugs to eat pests, which can alter the surrounding ecology).

And monocultures and chemical-supported farming don't alter the ecology?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Yes they are. I give you a academic source from one of the top cancer researchers in the US, and you give me an anti-pesticide website in return. Thanks, but I'll take the expert published by MIT press over Real Alternatives to Toxins in the Environment.

Moreover, pesticides allow for high-yield farming. Which means less of a carbon foot-print. Which means less impact on the environment. Natural pesticides used by humans are often more devastating to the environment (e.g. importing massive amounts of bugs to eat pests, which can alter the surrounding ecology).

Organic foods are not healthier. They have no more nutrition, nor are they safer. What's more, they are more expensive and they can have a larger negative impact on the environment because they need more space to produce the same amount.

cancer cancer cancer cancer cancer....

Its all about cancer

You fail to address that the articles I posted also cited medical journals and long term studies.

Natural pesticides generally include natural insect repellants, such as those used on organic apples. These do not involve introduction of rogue species or the use of man made chemicals that we will only know the effects of in decades to come.



argue with a government agency:

Human Health | Safe Communities | Research Programs | Health and Environmental Effects Research | US EPA
Human Health Effects

There are over 20,000 pesticide products containing 620 active ingredients on the market. Each year, 1 billion pounds of active ingredients in conventional pesticides are applied in the United States. There are over 80,000 existing chemicals on the TSCA inventory and each year an additional 2,000 chemicals are added. Release of these chemicals into the environment through agricultural and nonagricultural application and other means poses serious risks to both human health and ecosystems (e.g., plant and wildlife). Humans are exposed to thousands of these agents either singly or in various combinations every day through air, drinking water, food, and dust. In order to accurately characterize risk from and appropriately regulate the manufacture and use of pesticides and other chemicals, EPA must conduct a cost-benefit analysis for each product. Data needed for such analyses are provided, for the most part, by the manufacturer. It is, however, the responsibility of the Agency to provide detailed data collection protocols. This is accomplished through the publication of test guidelines, which must be developed and periodically reviewed.

 

[Oberon]

Why do you say that high-yield farming has less of a carbon footprint?

Almost all the natural farmland is in use. We are cutting down forests and jungle to make more. The key is to be able to produce more food with LESS space. High yield farming does that. Organic farming takes up more space. The more organic farms, the more space needed to produce less.

And monocultures and chemical-supported farming don't alter the ecology?

They can and do. But the point is so does organic farming. There is no reason for it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Almost all the natural farmland is in use. We are cutting down forests and jungle to make more. The key is to be able to produce more food with LESS space. High yield farming does that. Organic farming takes up more space. The more organic farms, the more space needed to produce less.

Depends where you are. On the fringes of the Brazilian rainforest, maybe. Around here, growing more food on less land means that the surplus farmland becomes available for building low-density housing and big box stores.

They can and do. But the point is so does organic farming. There is no reason for it.

But my point is that we're discussing two alternatives. If the same factor's on both sides, then it shouldn't play a role in the decision of which one's better.

 

[Oberon]

But my point is that we're discussing two alternatives. If the same factor's on both sides, then it shouldn't play a role in the decision of which one's better.

That's true. Both natural and synthetic pesticides change the environment. But the synthetic pesticides have other advantages. They allow higher yields with less. So if you get more, for cheaper, using less space, and organic foods are neither more nutritious or safe, and they have a negative impact on the environment as well, than why use them?

 

[Oberon]

You fail to address that the articles I posted also cited medical journals and long term studies.

Did you read these article? Are you sure they actually support what the site claims? Because the last time someone cited wiki (about DDT) and it used medical journals, the medical journals specifically contradicted the claims made by the wiki article.

Natural pesticides generally include natural insect repellants, such as those used on organic apples. These do not involve introduction of rogue species or the use of man made chemicals that we will only know the effects of in decades to come.

You are still acting like there exists some great leap between the chemical make-up of synthetic toxins and the chemical make-up of natural. There isn't.

argue with a government agency:

You mean, a government agency which goes out of its way to product the public against the slightest scare potentials, but still allows spraying? Hardly a support for your point. When you can represent the consensus of the scientific literature on the effects of pesticides, then talk to me. So far, all you have don't is post a "anti-pesticide" link and an epa home page. Where are the studies you have reviewed?

 

[Mr Cheese]

That's true. Both natural and synthetic pesticides change the environment. But the synthetic pesticides have other advantages. They allow higher yields with less. So if you get more, for cheaper, using less space, and organic foods are neither more nutritious or safe, and they have a negative impact on the environment as well, than why use them?

we ALREADY have enough food...FOR EVERYONE ON THE PLANET

in Europe and in USA we produce TOO MUCH FOOD, we have FOOD MOUNTAINS

why do we need high yield crops?

because we are GREEDY and unwilling to share!
Oh and to make genetic/pharmeceutical companies richer....

“When all the trees have been cut down,
when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted,
when all the air is unsafe to breathe,
only then will you discover you cannot eat money.”
—Cree prophecy

 

[Oberon]

we ALREADY have enough food...FOR EVERYONE ON THE PLANET

in Europe and in USA we produce TOO MUCH FOOD, we have FOOD MOUNTAINS

why do we need high yield crops?

because we are GREEDY and unwilling to share!
Oh and to make genetic/pharmeceutical companies richer....

“When all the trees have been cut down,
when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted,
when all the air is unsafe to breathe,
only then will you discover you cannot eat money.”
—Cree prophecy

When the research doesn't support you, rhetoric will!