Subject: Re: Risks in organic food
From: [email-masked] (Brian Manning Delaney)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 02:38:35 GMT
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.med,alt.politics.greens,sci.environment,alt.sustainable.agriculture

In article <[email-masked]>,
Jay Mann <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Brian Manning delaney <[email-masked]> wrote, in part:
><parts cut>
>: I'm just saying there are non-farfetched reasons for
>:thinking organic produce might be less likely to cause cancer, reasons
>:which have not yet been shown to be flawed. If the extra cost is not
>:huge (and if it tastes better, something I'm still unsure of...),
>:buying organic is sensible.
> 
>There are non-farfetched reasons for thinking that organic produce might
>be MORE likely to cause cancer.  In the absence of manmade fungicides,
>there is more opportunity for fungal metabolites to accumulate in this
>produce.  For instance, there is a nasty "carcinogenic" chemical called
>patulin, found in apples, and the highest concentration of patulin in at
>least one survey was found in organic apples and apple-juice.  (Let's
>not argue about whether minute traces of patulin are really dangerous or
>not; I happen to agree with Ames that there are concentration thresholds
>below which there is no practical danger.  But I'm merely using the same
>blind faith in mathematical models that leads to Alar-type
>hysterias.)...

For all we currently know, you really can't say "...MORE..."; it
should be, rather: "about the same," as you and others have suggested:
synthetic pesticides appear to be "nasty" in the unrealistic tests
required by most governments, and natural toxins appear to be "nasty"
in similar tests. Scientifically speaking, that's pretty much the end
of the story.

So what to do? Do we flip a coin to figure out whether or not to buy
organic produce (or go by small differences in price, etc., etc.)? I
don't think so.  I've said this before in the older thread, but, in
brief:  Our having evolved together with many (though not all, to be
sure) of the natural toxins to which we now are currently exposed
increases the likelihood that we have evolved defenses against them
that wouldn't be measured by current tests of carcinogenicity. Now it
is possible that these defenses are more "general," and thus could
work against synthetic pesticides as well (pesticides the danger of
which is also not accurately measured w/current methods), but I think
it's sensible at this point to say this is less likely (maybe only
very slightly, though).

Note: this argument is much stronger for foods made by plants that
"_want_" us (but not bugs) to eat them, like most fruits.

[Interesting exs. of natural toxins deleted.]

>Frankly, I'd rather have the grower apply a short-lived antifungal
>chemical which will have dissipated by the time I buy the celery, rather
>than have "natural" pesticides that might increase after the stress so
>harvest.

But usually pesticides aren't all that short-lived. So, again, it's
just natural vs. synthetic, w/nearly useless test results purporting
to tell us about their relative safety. As I say in my other post, I
do think it would be very close to -- though still not quite -- a
toss-up were the direct health consequences to the consumer of the
consumption of such produce the only factor.  But given the greater
risk to farmers (in the U.S., this is mostly migrant workers whose
health problems are likely under-reported) and to the environment, I
think the choice to buy organic (esp. "organic" by California
standards) is sensible.

-- 
Brian M. Delaney <[email-masked]>
              or <[email-masked]>

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