Subject: To purchase organic produce or not (was Re: RACHEL: Bruce Ames)
From: [email-masked] (Brian Manning Delaney)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 18:15:31 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens,sci.environment,sci.med,talk.environment,alt.sustainable.agriculture

In article <[email-masked]>
[email-masked] (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <[email-masked]>,
>Brian Manning Delaney <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>In article <[email-masked]>
>>[email-masked] (Tim Starr) writes:
>>>In article <[email-masked]>,
>>>Brian Manning Delaney <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>In article <[email-masked]>
>>>>[email-masked] writes:
>>>>....
>>>>>(One of the RACHEL arguments is that life is used to natural
>>>>>carcinogens, so the artificial ones are worse.  If life were used to
>>>>>the substance it wouldn't give mice cancer and wouldn't be counted as
>>>>>a carcinogen.)
>>>>....
    [Delaney:]
>>>>There's a piece of unsound reasoning in "natural"-bashing args. like
>>>>this.  It's possible that life's "being used to" a toxin means it has
>>>>learned to render it less toxic partly by means of other substances to
>>>>which we normally would simultaneously be exposed "in nature" (but not
>>>>in the lab).
   [Starr:]
>>>In other words, that the toxin would be neutralized by
>>>some sort of metabolic
>>>antidote?  Sure, this is possible.  And totally unproven....
  [Delaney:]
>>I agree completely. But surely you see that John's reasoning in the
>>parenthetical comment above is unsound.
 [Starr:]
>In the absence of any evidence that there are any such metabolic neutraliza-
>tions present in nature and absent in the lab, I don't think so.  I'd say
>that the presumption has to be in favor of John's argument.

But all you show in the rest of your article here [partly deleted] and
in your other articles is that my speculations on why "sustainable"
agriculture might produce safer foods don't constitute good evidence
for the superiority of such foods. I agree (it's merely a hypothesis,
after all). But that doesn't mean that the presumption has to be in
favor in John's argument; rather, it means we don't know.

I'm saying my speculations justify testing the possibility that
processes in the gut may neutralize toxins to which we have had a
chance to adapt better than they neutralize those that don't occur in
nature. (Or, if such tests currently aren't feasible, I'd say the
speculations justify putting some time into developing such tests.)

Further, while these speculations are certainly not good evidence of
the dangers of conventionally produced foods, they do justify, in my
view, the decision of a non-poor person to buy sustainably produced
("organic," I.P.M., etc.) food, where that food is only slightly more
expensive than conventionally produced food: At a scientific level, we
have to confess ignorance on the question of the dangers (direct
dangers to the consumer) of pesticides (in part because of problems
such as those pointed out by Ames involving the artificiality of
commonly used tests of carcinogenicity), but the (currently untested)
hypothesis that sustainable agriculture is more healthful seems
*slightly* stronger than it's opposite; so, for consumers like me (and
most people reading this), it makes sense to buy "organic" when
possible (= convenient, not involving hugely extra $, etc.).

Note: "like me" includes not just not being poor, but knowing a few
things about food safety. Indeed, this is why I'm not generalizing my
arguments about food-buying choices to the level of public policy.
I wouldn't want to see a mandate that all peanuts, for ex., be grown
w/o synthetic pesticides: many people wouldn't know how to reduce
aflatoxin risk (though the reduction is mostly the grower's, and not
the consumer's responsibility).

(But I'd like to see food safety taught as part of a nutrition course
that all high schoolers would have to take.)

In all honesty, the above considerations make me favor
non-conventional produce only very, very slightly. The scale is tipped
for me, however, when I consider a few other factors: the health of
farmers, and the safety of public water supplies (and of the
environment in general), for ex. Of course, as far as farmers are
concerned, a similar question re nat. vs.  artificial hazards arises
(farmers are at risk of disease from a few natural toxins), but the
issue is much more clear-cut: the overwhelming majority of toxins that
cause health problems for farmers result from non-sustainable ag.

>Another argument against the theory that natural defenses against cancer
>would've been adapted is that it confuses the function of the survival of
>the fittest to mean fitness for longevity rather than reproductive
>fitness....

>...evolution only cares about reproductive
>fitness, not longevity.

Don't tell your parents that!

Seriously, caring about longevity is one way of caring about rep.
fitness.

Me 'n my kin are social types, and have been for, oh, a few hundred
thousand years at least. My grandparents and parents have passed on
many jewels of wisdom to me -- jewels of wisdom that have helped me
survive.

My family may be an exception nowadays, but you can bet that elders
had a huge effect on survival in times past.

>...Perhaps we adapted defenses against childhood/adulthood
>cancers and other diseases.

You're right here, though, that survival of folks of reproductive age
is probably more important from an evol'ary standpoint that survival
of the elders, but the elders are definitely not irrelevant, for
humans.  This is partly why we have such long life spans (but only
partly -- it's a tricky issue).

In sum, I can think of more reasons to buy organic than not, and Ames
hasn't said anything to change my mind. But, of course, much more work
needs to be done on the dangers of pesticides and fertilizers -- both
both natural and artificial -- before definitive statements on direct
risks to consumers can be made.
-- 
Brian M. Delaney <[email-masked]>
              or <[email-masked]>

"My genius is in my nostrils." -Nietzsche.