I went through Dr. Joe's articles that he sent us, looking for those points that we have in common. Surprisingly, there were many.
----- Organic
Pesticides and nitrates from fertilizer enter ground water with potential environmental and health consequences.
Pyrethrum, an extract of chrysanthemum flowers, has long been used to control insects. The Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. classifies it as a likely human carcinogen
Rotenone is highly toxic to humans and causes Parkinson's disease in rats.
True, organic produce will have lower levels of pesticide residues but the significance of this is highly debatable.
When they are not protected by pesticides, crops produce their own chemical weapons. Some of these, various flavonoids, are antioxidants which may contribute to human health. Organic pears and peaches are richer in these compounds and organic tomatoes have more vitamin C and lycopene.
Where organic agriculture comes to the fore is in its impact on the environment. Soil quality is better, fewer pollutants are produced and less energy is consumed.
Organic 2
When French researchers compared the differences in lycopene, vitamin C and polyphenol content of organic versus conventional tomatoes, they found that the organic tomatoes had somewhat higher levels of vitamin C and polyphenols, which was not surprising given that the tomatoes probably produce these to fend of pests. If they get no help from commercial pesticides, they will produce more of the natural variety.
Synthetic fertilizers, with their high levels of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus, encourage rapid growth, but this results in more water being taken up from the soil. The produce is bigger, but it is bigger because it has a higher water content. Organic crops, fertilized with manure, take up nitrogen more slowly and have a lower water content. In a sense they are more concentrated in flavourful compounds.
While the residue from pesticides would seem to pose very little risk, eating organic foods does eliminate exposure. When children eating conventional foods are switched to organic foods, pesticides disappear from the urine after five days.
Organic 3
(Agrochemicals)Their effect on non-target species, such as interference with the egg-laying abilities of birds, began to raise questions about their effect on human health.
While there is overwhelming evidence that a diet high in fruits and vegetables is healthy, there is no hard evidence that this is due specifically to antioxidant content. In theory, the assumption is reasonable, because antioxidants, at least in the laboratory, can neutralize free radicals which have been linked with a variety of health problems. But fruits and vegetables contain hundreds of different compounds and it isn't clear which ones are responsible for the health benefits. Studies with isolated antioxidants have proven to be disappointing.
----- Note: Dr. Joe seems to be ignoring the interaction between all the compounds in the fruit. Michael Pollan made this point in his books
The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan
formatting link
Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Pollan
formatting link
(Enter-relationship, i.e. Omega 3s and 6s)
That for health we weren't looking for one ingredient (like omega-3) but a range of plants, ideally leafy ones, and a little meat.
Some, but certainly not all, studies have shown that organically grown foods are higher in antioxidants. This isn't surprising because crops left to fend for themselves without outside chemical help will produce a variety of natural pesticides, some of which just happen to have antioxidant properties. . . . . According to a four year long study carried out at the University of Newcastle, organic food is some 40% richer in antioxidants.
If cost is not an issue, organic may indeed be an appropriate choice. There is no doubt that it is environmentally a more sound practice.
Pesticides
While there are safe ways to use these chemicals, there can be no universal "guarantee of safety." After all, pesticides are designed to kill their targets, whether these be insects, weeds or fungi. The best we can do is evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of each substance and make appropriate judgements.
------- Note: To ³organic types² it appears that the risk to benefit ratio is environmental risks to profit ratio, and that the ratio is very small indeed. There are deep pocket lobbyists for chemical companies that pay for favorable testing for their products. There are well-paid lobbyists for agribusiness who want to produce more product, and there are well-paid lobbyists for food retailers who like food with a long shelf life. Where are the deep pocketed, well-paid lobbyists for the environment and consumers?
All ways of reducing pesticide risk are examined, with great emphasis on Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, which is aimed at reducing the reliance of pesticides as the sole approach to pest management. IPM is geared towards taking action only when numbers of pests warrant it and uses a mix of biological, physical and chemical techniques. (This is Canadian, not American)
But can even such a rigorous system ensure that we will have no consequences from the use of pesticides? Absolutely not. There may be subtle effects in humans that show up only after years of exposure.
One of the developing concerns about the use of insecticides and herbicides is a possible effect on the immune system. Laboratory evidence indicates impaired activity of immune cells after exposure . . .
It would be great if we could get away from using pesticides. No exposure to pesticides means no exposure to their risks.
Pesticides 2
Pesticides are nasty chemicals.
The discovery of the toxicity of lead and arsenic compounds led to the extensive use of lead arsenate in agriculture, without much concern for its effects on human health. Note: Has anything changed? Profit still drives the market.
. . . rapid advances in chemistry in the post-war era introduced synthetic pesticides . . . Insects shuddered, fungi floundered, weeds and agricultural yields boomed. Note: beneficial insects, fungi, and weeds as well shuddered, floundered, and wilted, while the topsoil blew and flowed away.
Analytical chemists, armed with their gas chromatographs and mass spectrometers, heightened our fears by revealing that it was not only farmers or agro-chemical producers who were exposed to pesticides, we all were! Residues of these chemicals were found on virtually everything we ate.
Speaking of Alar,² Toxicologists, agronomists, physicians and environmentalists all waded in with their opinions, along with hordes of emotionally-charged consumers who were clearly out of their depth in such a complex discussion.²
Note: Toxicologists, agronomists, physicians and environmentalists aren't consumers too? Moreover, there are many who have been trained in chemistry, and biology who don't fit into the above list. Us Joe Six-pack consumers, tend to get emotionally charged when we find questionable substances in our food that we didn't know were there.
Would a pesticide-free world be better? For people who have to handle pesticides occupationally, and for the environment, yes.
Pesticides are designed to kill
The World Health Organization estimates that there are roughly three million cases of pesticide poisoning world wide every year, and close to a quarter million deaths!
Pesticide companies, in some cases, pay their salespeople on commission so it is in their interest to push product even when it may not be necessary. In Sri Lanka pesticides are advertised on radio to the public, often painting an unrealistic picture of magical, risk-free crop protection.
Even though there may be no immediate effects of such exposure, there are enough studies suggesting a link between pesticide use and neurological problems, developmental delays, Parkinson's disease and cancer to cause concern.
An often-quoted study at Stanford University found a link between Parkinson's disease and domestic pesticide use. People with as few as thirty days of exposure to home insecticides were at significantly greater risk; garden insecticides were somewhat less risky. Because of the large variety of products available, the researchers were not able to zero in on any specific ingredients.
Great caution must be used with insecticides in the home and I think their use during pregnancy should be totally avoided.
----------
There you have it. Except for the notes, the rest of the text was taken from the materials written by Dr. Joe.
His oft-used reason that we need agrochemicals is that the population is growing and that we need the chemicals to grow more food. The first point is that at some point, like peak-oil, we will reach peak-people. For all our sakes, population increases must stop. My suggestion would be to offer clean water, food, and housing to any one who would be sterilized. Not the most popular idea in the world, so maybe somebody has a better idea.
I could be wrong but it seems that Dr. Joe is relying on monoculture, factory farming, as we know it to do this. He doesn't address crop rotation, which helps prevent insect infestation by moving the pest's food source to a different location, or cover crops like beans. We may need to return to seasonal foods and give up strawberries in the dead of winter. We should forget biofuel made from foodstuffs. And we need to end CAFOs, especially those that grain finish animals.
Please comment.
Oh yeah, while I'm on the soapbox, we need single-payer health care.