Organic - If They Only Knew or Understood!

General Fruit Growing
#62

I routinely get headaches on nights after days I’ve shoveled a lot of compost. I too have often wondered about the possible health consequences of some of the millions of fungi we inhale, eat and absorb on a daily basis. Agricultural chemicals are at least tested- we are exposed to so many potentially harmful ones that we are virtually clueless about.

This whole topic started with the article that suggested that all pesticides have similar risks, including those manufactured by the vegetables we eat. I wonder what research would come up with if these kinds of compounds were studied in the same way synthetic pesticides are. Maybe a new health craze would begin where only synthetic food was considered truly healthy to consume- clean, carcinogen-free food.

#63

Jujube,

Although I really don’t have time to engage in a long back and forth discussion, I wanted to address a few things you’ve brought up. If I don’t respond to to any reply you choose to offer, it’s not because I am trying to be rude or disengage, rather it’s probably just that I don’t have the time.

First, the study you mentioned earlier in the thread linking developmental disorders with proximity to agricultural pesticides does not demonstrate causation (according to rules of good research). The study was poorly done. Frequently this is the case with these types of studies.

See: Skeptoid: Pregnancy, Pesticides, and Autism

You’ve made the point some current pesticides may be unsafe, because some past pesticides have “after the fact” been demonstrated to be unsafe. This is certainly true, but the premise is non-falsifiable. It’s impossible for anyone to “prove” safety in a good many things. It would be akin to someone saying we shouldn’t use cell phones because they may cause long term health problems, yet to be discovered. -There are some studies which link cell phone use to some cancers, and they do increase glucose in the brain when used:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/expert-answers/cell-phones-and-cancer/faq-20057798

Likewise we could avoid driving automobiles because some have a history of manufacturer defects causing fatalities (stuck gas pedals, gas tanks which explode, etc.). I’m not trying to be absurd, but to me this is the same type of non-falsifiable assertions.

It is true pesticides are intended to kill biological things, which merits extensive testing (and they are). However, I would also point out many household products we consume can also be used as pesticides (vinegar as a herbicide, milk as a fungicide, non-stick spray oil as an insecticide) which means they are lethal to biological entities. Even non-stick teflon cookware is toxic to some birds (perhaps you don’t use teflon cookware, but my point is many people do, and there is no large movement to ban it, as is the case with pesticides.)

You have indicated you are a physician. As such, I’m sure you are aware that every substance is toxic and could potentially cause long term health problems with over use. Alcohol and table salt are some of the more toxic substances we consume. To put this into perspective, some of the pesticides I use are less acutely toxic in the tank mix than alcohol. In other words, if I were to dip a big cup of pesticide mix out of the spray tank and drink it, it would be less acutely toxic than drinking a beer.

You certainly have a right to eat or not eat what you want, but the issue I have with the Environmental Working Groups “Dirty Dozen” is that it really scares people off fruits and vegetables as a whole, which is a much much higher health risk than eating food which has been sprayed with pesticides. You may be able to afford organic food, but some simply eat less fruits and vegetables as a result. As a doctor, I’m sure you are aware that diabetes is probably more linked to obesity and to eating junk food rather than somehow linked to pesticides. I’ve never known anyone who became obese by eating too many fruits and vegetables.

In terms of alternatives, I think you misunderstood Alan’s point. As I understand it, I believe he was referring to the larger question of a paradigm of agricultural production, not merely a personal choice in what to eat. In other words, he was suggesting you offer a practical alternative to our current method of producing fruits and vegetables, not simply a choice of avoiding the Dirty Dozen. Historically speaking, the “Green Revolution”, largely based on pesticides and chemical fertilizer, has done a lot towards reducing world hunger. Most of world hunger now results from political or economic systems, not from world wide food shortages common before the green revolution.

3 Likes
#64

Mostly from disruptions caused by civil war lately, which has a high effect on urban populations as well as rural.

Actually, I think JuJu understood my point about the consequences of higher food prices and elected not to address it in the end because it wasn’t what he (or she) intended to discuss, ultimately sticking to points about presumed healthy eating choices.

Some people believe there is enough evidence to suggest that the relatively small amount of residue in conventional food represents a true health threat. I myself have mixed “feelings” on the subject and actually sacrifice to rot a percentage of the stone fruit I grow just so my customers and I aren’t eating too much fungicide. The gov says it’s safe to apply most of the good brown rot fungicides on the day of harvest or just before that but I aim for a minimum month interval. I produce mostly dirty looking apples because they are not sprayed for the 3 or more months preceding the harvest of most varieties. This fruit would be almost impossible to sell, and my customers probably wouldn’t eat it if it wasn’t off their own trees and because I explain the amount of spray required to get pristine fruit.

I’m sure a lot of the fruit I produce that is wasted would be used if I applied enough pesticide to make it pristine, so the reduced spray may be a net human health and environmental loss compared to more conventional production techniques if I could crunch all the numbers.

.

#65

Considering the typical ignorant, arrogant, mean-spirited, etc comments in forums and comment sections of websites when debates of environmental and political issues start, I’m surprised at the reasonable and intelligent debating that goes on here. It’s been an interesting read.

1 Like
#66

I did. It was David’s comment.

#67

I’m impressed with the newer generation pesticides. They aren’t the old “nerve” poison types that are toxic to many animals and pests. Rather they are much more specific for individual pests and novel modes of action. Many you could drink and not be hurt. Things like BT, spinosad, viruses, insect growth regulators, etc, etc. Many haven’t reached the home grower and probably won’t for several reasons like being very specialized. But for many pests like spider mites they are very effective at very low rates. There is also greatly increased emphasis on rotating modes of action to avoid resistance.

I think many of these new synthetic pesticides are probably much safer than older generation organic materials that fall more into the class of generalized poisons. The newer materials are more expensive and require intensive management but are being adapted by large scale ag. We are making big improvements IMO.

#68

This is off topic, but I want to correct this statement because it’s erroneous. I don’t know what the odds are of having tetanus spores on a kitchen knife. I’m only guessing that they are lower than 1%. However, the survival rate for tetanus, even if it progresses from a localized infection to a general one, is close to 90%. The disease and treatment are not pleasant, but it’s nowhere close to a 99% death rate where modernized treatment is given.

I’m not saying that a tetanus vaccine should not be given under the circumstances. Bacteria entering the wound do not come from the knife alone, but can also enter from anything else in the environment before the wound is totally healed. The original statement sounded good, and was only used to make a point, but the facts were imaginary and too erroneous to just leave be in case anyone in the future took them at face value.

I apologize for being off topic, but the misinformation kept bothering me.

#69

you’re right, it is ~90, i blame it on the proximity of the 9 to 0 on the alpha-pad :innocent:
honestly though, it was a guesstimate on my part, just for ilustrative purposes.

#70

Regarding the relative merits of organic vs chemical pest management, I too find this a very balanced and civil discussion. Kudos to the participants. I would like to point out that in addition to human/mammalian safety, a major goal of organic pest management is to minimize any potential negative effects on the environment such as non target beneficial insects.
I would encourage those with an interest to read this journal article published by an economist. Pimental D., Environmental and Economic Costs of the Application of Pesticides Primarily in the Unites States. Environment, Development and Sustainability (2005) 7: 229–252, DOI 10.1007/s10668-005-7314-2 (2005)

1 Like
#71

“Thus began a fateful test of wills. Merrell (the drug manufacturer) responded. Dr. Kelsey wanted more information. Merrell complained to Dr. Kelsey’s bosses, calling her a petty bureaucrat. She persisted. On it went. But by late 1961, the terrible evidence was pouring in. The drug — better known by its generic name, thalidomide — was causing thousands of babies in Europe, Britain, Canada and the Middle East to be born with flipperlike arms and legs and other defects.”

I was reading about this drug (quoted from the NY Times) that the late Dr. Kelsey stopped from entering the U.S. market and couldn’t help but wonder how synthetic pesticides get so much bad press compared to synthetic medicines. I can think of no credible media voice suggesting banning synthetic compounds from the production of medicines although stories like this are not uncommon while the fear of pesticides is based more on theory than actual events- at least when pesticides are used correctly.

While I understand the argument that it is often a less difficult task to grow food without synthetics than to cure a sickness, I believe it is quite clear that modern chemistry has been as helpful at improving crop production as it has been at improving medicine.