This article is not new but well worth reading.

Organic Food: Food for Thought?
by David M. Klurfeld, Ph.D.

Sales of organic foods have soared in recent years. They are touted as cleaner, more nutritious and better for the environment than foods produced by conventional means. But are such claims really true? People are finally starting to examine these questions.

On February 4, 2000, the ABC News show 20/20 presented a report about organic foods by John Stossel—a report that asked these questions about cleanliness, nutritional value and environmental impact of organic versus conventionally-grown produce.

The 20/20 investigators examined produce for cleanliness by measuring the bacterial count in water used to wash it, as well as the presence of pesticide residues. They found that only about five percent of all food samples were contaminated with bacteria. But, organic produce had more bacterial contamination than conventional products. Specifically, sprouts and precut salad greens from organic suppliers had more bacteria. One-third of all sprouts sampled had E. coli bacteria on them and organic ones had twice the number of bacteria as the nonorganic vegetables. E. coli bacteria are markers of fecal contamination—probably due to the use of manure as fertilizer.

Interestingly, there were not any pesticide residues on any of the produce sampled—organic or conventional, collected in two states. This is an important point. Relatively small percentages of produce have detectable levels of pesticides. This same result was found by Consumers Reports in March 1999, but that publication emphasized the presence of the pesticides which came from only a few products.

If we look at these results on cleanliness in terms of current risks, it is important to note that we have an estimated 5,000-10,000 deaths a year in the United States from food-borne bacteria but none from pesticides. Does it make sense to use organic farming methods if it even slightly increases risk of infection? Should we fear pesticides because they are artificial? The science-based answer to both questions seems to be a clear "no." Is it conceivable that there coulde long-term risks of harm from pesticides? It is possible, but the data are not consistent and available information on eating lots of fruits and vegetables strongly suggests there is no long-term risk.

One of the more solid findings on the relationship of diet and cancer is that the more fruits and vegetables eaten, the lower the risk of a variety of cancers including stomach, colon, prostate and lung. If artificial pesticide residues on plants are so harmful and carcinogenic, why do the people who eat the most wind up being the healthiest? In fact, Dr. Bruce Ames, a leading biochemist at the University of California at Berkeley, has stated that 99.99% of pesticides in plants are naturally occurring. This is precisely how today's plants have survived and evolved - making their own defenses against being eaten by insects. Commercial quantities of produce need extra protection to reduce crop loss.

What about the nutrition issue? There is no evidence that organic food is more nutritious or healthier for people even though they pay a high premium. Not a single published study has shown any difference in the nutrient content of organic versus conventional farm products. This contradicts the widespread belief that our soils are depleted of nutrients and thus plants grown in them are deficient in a variety of vitamins and minerals. Commercial fertilizers are not simple combinations of the elements nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus - they contain a variety of other minerals that are naturally occurring and taken up by plants. One problem with organic fertilizer (known in polite company as manure) is that it contains heavy metals, bacteria, and viruses. In fact, garden centers sell processed sludge from several cities and labels on the bags warn customers not to use these products on vegetable gardens because of these risks.

Organic farming seems intuitively better for the environment due to the lack of chemicals used, but the reduced yields compared to conventional farming are an important trade-off in deciding if this is really an improvement. Organic farmers justify higher prices because they have lower yields; weeds and insects compete with the crops more effectively. It has been estimated that twice as much land would have to be farmed with organic methods to produce the same amount of food we currently grow. That much farmable land does not exist.

It is self-centered of the better-off to demand all growers adopt organic farming methods. The poor in this country and in most of the developing world would not be able to buy enough of any food if the entire system were changed. Modern agricultural methods provide the only system that can support the current—and likely increasing— world population. While there is room for organic alternatives, they cannot replace the conventional system. Organic crops do not score better than traditional ones in terms of safety, nutrition, or the environment. In fact, sometimes they may not be as safe and they almost always cost more. This is not usually a sales plus but the average consumer, believing that organic foods are more healthful and better for the environment, seems willing to pay. This is truly food for thought.

Dr. Klurfeld is Scientific Advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at Wayne State University.

Interesting indeed. It seems to me that "science" isn't something that is practiced by the "experts" in the Health or Environment business. If anything they seem to push things that make people and the environment less healthy.

The E. coli findings really give me the creeps considering Walkerton.

Walkerton is a small Ontario town where 7 people died and more than 2,000 were sickened by E. coli contamination of the town's water system in May 2000.

I am not sure how they tested for pesticide levels, but I have read before that they do not test individual foods. Instead, they blend several foods together, then run one test on the blended batch. That is why the tests show only 'trace' levels of pesticide. The reason Consumer Reports focused on the individual foods is because there are people like us who eat lc and probably eat more of certain foods than the general popluation. For example, we probably eat more broccoli. If you mix the broccoli with potatoes, carrots, beans, and rice, the resulting mixture has acceptable pesticide levels. However, if you test the broccoli alone, the levels may be much higher. It is also why canned tuna with very high mercury levels may be 'acceptable' -- it was not tested individually, but rather mixed in a batch of tomatoes and cucumbers before being tested.

Also, pesticides are not the only chemical used. They also use herbicides and fungicides, just to name a few. And people are not the only ones affected by these chemicals. Some may eventually break down into harmless compounds, but in the meantime beneficial insects, earthworms, birds and other mamals are affected by them. And there is always run-off into nearby streams and waterways, then fish and other amphibians are affected. Hard rains can cause the chemicals to leach into and contaminate ground water. A large rural area not far from us has contaminated ground water from chemicals used to grow potatoes. Many lakes in my area are like thick, green pea soup from the algae bloom caused by farm run-off of chemicals. If you read the label on a pesticide or fungicide, it warns you not to pick or eat the vegetables for several days after the application of the chemical. Doesn't sound all that safe to me.

I agree with a quote I once read: "I don't mind biting into an apple and finding a worm -- at least I know something ate it and lived". And I'm always glad to see a lawn with dandilions because I know at least one other person is not dumping a bunch of chemicals on their lawn.

Peg,

Your post sounds like you have bought into the myths, distortions and lies of the animal rights radicals and the environmental whackos. Basically, everything you say is untrue.

Just a couple of examples.

No individual can of tuna has unsafe levels of mercury. Absolutely none. Ocean fish are tested many times for many contaminants before being processed and further tested after testing. My supermarket butcher was explaining the entire process to me a couple of weeks ago.

There have always been algae in stagnant warm lakes and ponds and there will always be. It has nothing to do with farming chemicals. Actually, many of the farming chemical would kill the algae so your lake sounds fairly normal.

Autumn tree leaves falling in the creek kills the trout in the city where I live. They are not being killed by framing or lawn chemicals. The decaying leaves use up all the oxygen in the water and the fish die. The city should cut down many of the tree but they won't.

Don't fall for the dogma and hype which is nothing but lies. The original post in the thread clearly shows how far the dogma is from reality.

Kent

Kent,

I live in a big farming area. I know for a fact that a large rural area near us has contaminated wells from chemicals used on potatoes. The chemical that the wells are contamined with is one that has been used for growing the large crops of potatoes on the near-by fields. I also know that we were forced to anex our home into the city to get city water because of a large area of private well contamination, and one of the four city wells is also contaminated. I have grown a garden for years and have discriminately used some chemicals when necessary, but only the least toxic ones and for the shortest duration possible. And I know that the label tells me not to pick or consume the produce for a specific period of time because it is not safe.

I do know that there are some alarmists who over-react about chemicals. I also know that there are some people who have the attitude that if this much is good, then twice as much is twice as good and they use a shotgun approach by using the most toxic chemicals 'just to be sure'. There should be a middle ground where we use less chemicals with more discretion. And I do shudder whenever I see the 'Chem Lawn' trucks spraying the poisons on the lawns. They even post little signs warning everyone to keep pets and children off the grass. Why would they do that if it's so safe? I have read 2 articles in the past month about numerous people getting mercury poisoning from eating fish, so it is a growing concern. And these articles were in popular magazines, not ones published by fanatics.

I have also seen the results of a large fish kill that was officialy and irrefutably linked to farm run-off. Leaves may be the reason for the algae bloom in your area, but here in Wisconsin the only clear lakes are the ones north of Rice Lake where it is too wooded for farming. If leaves from trees are the cause of algae bloom, then why are the lakes in the farming areas with few trees overgrown with algae and like pea soup, but the ones in the wooded northland clear?

Peg,

You are overreacting from a few incidences as so many people do. Something happened which caused your well to be polluted. Wells do not have an eternal guarantee that the water will be unchanged. In fact, many wells are found to be contaminated by nature with unhealthy contaminants at the time they are drilled. Get a reverse osmosis water system which will remove all comtaminents from the water. I am on the city water system and I have one. City water is undrinkable, in my view.

People get killed in cars by the thousands, but we still keep driving. We risk our lives to go on an unnecessary leasure trip. There are positives and negative to everything is society.

I didn't say the leaves caused algae. The decaying autumn leaves in the creek absorbed all the oxygen and killed the fish.

Beautiful green lawns require kids and pets stay to off for a while as a precaution to a rare event. There is a trade off for everything. No biggie there.

We are going to keep producing farm products using chemicals because the risks are small and the benefits large.

As a teenager on the farm I was literally drenched in pesticides including DDT, Malathion and two others. My dad put four different pesticides in the tank. The 400 psi sprayer would drench a full grown apple tree in seconds, and the overspray was a blowing cloud of mist which left me with a pure white coat of pesticides as the moisture evaporated. I received more pesticide in one spraying than the average person receives in a lifetime. This was repeated for many years with several spraying each year. Both of my sisters have had cancer, one has heart disease and the other diabetes and IBD. Yet, I continue to be in perfect health with absolutely no discernable effect from the pesticide overdose. WAIT? Maybe the pesticides prevent cancer, heart disease, diabetes and IBD. That should be investigated. After all, I am living proof it is true.

Kent

The source of the well contamination is documented by both the WDNR and EPA. Certain chemicals are used exclusively for farming. That is why we were given the option of receiving the city water. Our well has a tag that labels it unfit for consumption. I don't believe that saying we should use a bit of caution in light of more and more of this happening is over-reacting.

As I said before, I am not saying that all chemicals are bad. What I am saying is that we all should be more aware of the results of using them and use a bit more caution. If there is a less toxic alternative such as Rotenone instead of Malathion (which is deadly to bees), then why not use the less toxic one? If the mosquito repellent with 10% DEET works, why use one with 100% DEET? What's the point?

As for the lawns, we use an organic weed and feed. It contains a mixture of long-lasting organic fertilizer and ground corn cobs (helps the farmers -- we're using what would be waste products) to inhibit weed growth. It works and I don't have to worry about letting my grandkids go out into the yard to play ball or play on the swing set. It costs a bit more than the do-it-yourself chemicals, but is a fraction of the cost of a lawn service, so we consider it a great alternative.

As far as you being drenched in chemicals, why do some of us get cancer and others don't? No one knows the answer to that. My husband's family farms and his grandmother died of cancer, his dad has cancer, and uncle has cancer. Why? Who knows? If we knew why some of us get cancer and others don't then we would be rich.

Hi Peg,

The cause of cancer is well known by many, but there is little money to be made in its prevention. The money is in the making of the thousands of high-carbohydrate foods, trans fatty acids, prescription drugs which are largely ineffective and cancer treatments which are largely ineffective.

Dr. Robert C. Atkins was a brilliant cancer doctor for which he is less well know than his weight loss program. He wrote the first chapter in the book, Alternative Medicine Definitive Guide to Cancer.

Cancer can be prevented by:

Eating a low-carbohydrate diet with lots meat, fish, fowl and low-carb vegetables that are purchased in their raw, unprocessed state.

Take cod liver oil for the omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D. The deficiency of vitamin D is strongly linked to many cancers like breast cancer and prostate cancer.

Drink water from a reverse osmosis water system with a UV lamp as a disinfectant treatment.

Take a good vitamin, mineral and supplement program as recommended by Dr. Atkins.

Prepare and serve food with glass, ceramic or stainless steel cookware.

Thing to avoid in order to prevent cancer are:

Never eat hydrogenated oils, trans fatty acids.

Avoid carbohydrates, especially sugar, white flour and white rice.

Avoid omega-6 fatty acids except GLA found in borage oil. The natural omega-6 fats in meat are sufficient.

No not microwave food.

Avoid plastic in the storage, preparation and serving of food. Some are better than others. Foggy plastics that leave a taste in water are the worst.

Don't smoke and avoid excessive alcohol.

Avoid over-the-counter and prescription drugs.

Avoid the numerous industrial and household chemicals, dusts, radiation, x-rays, etc. As an example: automotive brake cleaner causes brain cancer and PVC causes cancer.

Women should not use birth control pills or patches.

Menopausal women should not use estrogen hormone therapy but should use natural progesterone cream. Men over 50 should use the cream as well.

Mammogram x-rays are highly suspect as causing cancer.

When Will the Insanity of Mammogram Recommendations End? 3/6/02

Expert Panel Cites Doubts on Mammogram's Worth 2/16/02

Paranoia cancer fears are:

Farming and lawn chemicals when used and applied according to the directions are not cancer causing. This does not apply to sales persons and those in the business of applying the chemicals who must take extra precautions. A relative was a salesman for a vegetation killing chemical company (agent orange) and drove around with it in his car trunk. Within five years he developed brain cancer but has survived with brain damage.

The chances of getting struck by lightning are much greater than getting cancer from eating conventional vegetables. Organic foods are a FRAUD. One store was selling "organic sugar" as healthy.

Organic Foods: Will Certification Protect Consumers?

Dr. Mercola - Killer Sugar! Suicide With A Spoon 1/9/00.

Red-meat and saturated fats do not cause cancer but are healthy foods that prevent many diseases including cancer.



Peg, you buy weed and feed fertilizer for your lawn and let the grandkids play in it. I doubt that is a problem but it seems to be contrary to your previous concerns. The ground corn cobs in fertilizer is a scam. It is just a method of selling some worthless waste material for a high price. There may be some value for the grass but the amount applied is certainly nil.

Kent

The official position of the US Food and Drug Administration on fruit and vegetable pesticides.

Perceived Problem: Fruits and vegetables contain harmful pesticides.
Possible Solutions:

It is a fact that pesticides are used in the production of most fruits and vegetables sold in this country. They help protect crops from insects, diseases, weeds, and mold, thus helping to increase crop yield. "They allow for production of a plentiful and affordable food supply," said John Jones, Ph.D., in FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

"They are not contaminants. They are substances applied intentionally for a specific purpose and therefore are subject to very rigorous regulatory control," he said. "A new pesticide law enacted in 1996 puts even tighter controls on the use of pesticides."

Several federal agencies share responsibility for pesticide oversight. The Environmental Protection Agency registers pesticides for food use and sets tolerance levels--the upper permitted limit for pesticide residues in individual foods. FDA enforces these limits for all foods except meat and poultry, which fall under USDA's jurisdiction.

FDA collects and analyzes almost 10,000 samples of fruits and vegetables yearly for pesticide residues. Since 1987, when the agency began reporting the results of its monitoring program annually, more than 99 percent of domestic fruit and vegetable samples and more than 95 percent of imported samples have been found free of illegal pesticide residues or had low-level residues that fell within established tolerances. Violations mainly occurred because low-level pesticide residues not approved for a particular product were identified in that food. However, most of the pesticides causing these violations were approved for use on many other foods, Jones said.

"Most violations are not due to the presence of banned pesticides, such as DDT, chlordane and heptachlor, or to very high levels of residues," he said. "Most are due to very low-level residues on the wrong commodity."

So, FDA's position is that the U.S. fruit and vegetable supply does not contain excessive pesticide residues and that the benefits of eating fresh produce far exceeds any risk from residues, Jones said.

However, if you're still concerned, here are some steps you can take to reduce your risk further:

Wash fruits and vegetables with water and scrub with a dish brush when appropriate: for example, before eating apples, cucumbers, potatoes, or other produce in which the outer skin or peeling is consumed.

Throw away the outer leaves of leafy vegetables, such as lettuce and cabbage.

Peel and cook when appropriate, although some nutrients and fiber may be lost when produce is peeled.

Hmmm the same people who came up with the food pyramid.

Believing them is like believe that the wolf among the sheep is really only a sheep dog.

Kent,

Again I did not say that all chemicals are bad or should be banned. I believe that we should use the least toxic chemicals for each problem. Malathion kills beneficial insects such as bees as well as the pests. And it does not kill just the bees that touch the contaminated flowers, they take it back to the hive and it kills the entire hive. My friends who keep bees for the honey cannot use Malathion in their garden just for that reason. They use Rotenone with great success and it is far less toxic. That is why I believe the more toxic chemicals should be reserved as a last resort for a pest problem rather than the first line of defense. I do not use any chemicals on my own garden, but I am not trying to earn a living by growing produce and a small amount of insect damage in inconsequential to me. The cost of the sprayer and chemicals would far outweigh the cost of a bit of insect damage to my small home garden. I do realize that this is not the case of someone whose livelihood depends on that produce. Again, I do believe that we should take the least toxic approach to the problem. All chemicals have a waiting period during which time we should not eat the produce. This is to allow the chemicals to break down. If they are all completely harmless then we would not have to wait three days or seven days or whatever waiting period is recommended for that particular chemical application before eating the produce. They are toxic and their use affects much more than just the pests they are meant to kill. They should be used with a certain degree of discrimination.

I agree that quoting anything from the government is like walking through a mine field.

The food pyramid guide is from the US Dept. of Agriculture, not the US Food and Drug Administration, but that doesn't matter much. The FDA approved the cholesterol lowering drug Baycor which killed 50 people before being pulled off the market by the manufacturer, not the FDA. The aftermath killed another 50 people in the last report I read. The FDA also approved the diet drug Phen Fen which damaged the heart valves of two people which I know personally. Silicon breast implant are another disaster among the hundreds.

I wish I hadn't quoted from the FDA since they are more of a negative than a helpful resource.

Kent

Peg,

Since so many claims by environmentalist are later found to be false, I thought giving your claim about the hazard of pesticides to bees a quick check. Well, you were half right. Rotenone is non-toxic to bees, but Malathion is only a problem when sprayed directly on the bees or the hives.

The use of Malathion by the typical gardener or home owner should be an extremely low hazard to bees. A farmer may have some concern, but the overall impact seems very low. Many of the flowers that bees seek are not sprayed with pesticide. A good example is clover alfalfa which farmers do not normally spray. Clover honey is the popular type we see in the supermarket.

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cach...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

PROTECTING HONEY BEES FROM PESTICIDES.



Bottom line - Use the Malathion. Just don't spray the neighbor's bee hives.

Kent

Hello Kent,
I agree with almost everything you said except for this:



There research has not supported what was previously thought about silicone breast implants. They do not appear to cause cancer, immune disorders or any of the other ailments frequently attributed to them.