Less Pesticide Residue on Organic Produce

kmguru

Staff member
Study Finds Far Less Pesticide Residue on Organic Produce
By MARIAN BURROS (NY Times)

he first detailed scientific analysis of organic fruits and vegetables, published today, shows that they contain a third as many pesticide residues as conventionally grown foods.

The findings, published in the Food Additives and Contaminants Journal, confirmed what consumers of organic food have taken for granted but did not settle the argument over whether organic food is safer than conventional food treated with chemical pesticides.

The debate gained prominence in February 2000 when John Stossel, a correspondent on the ABC News program "20/20," reported that testing had proved that the levels of pesticide residues in conventional produce were similar to those in organic produce, making organic claims a fraud. Though Mr. Stossel retracted his statement — such testing had never been conducted — his report alarmed proponents of organic agriculture and those like Consumers Union who do not oppose the use of synthetic pesticides but want stricter standards.

Edward Groth III, a senior scientist at Consumers Union and a co-author of the report, said: "There have been some very strong opinions voiced about organic produce that haven't been based on data and have confused the issue. This report shows rather convincingly and compellingly that organic foods are much less likely to have any residues; that when they have residues they have fewer and that the levels of the residues are generally lower."

The findings are based on pesticide residue data collected on a wide variety of foods by the United States Department of Agriculture from 1994 to 1999, tests conducted on food sold in California by the state's Department of Pesticide Regulation from 1989 through 1998, and tests by Consumers Union in 1997. The combined data covered more than 94,000 food samples from more than 20 crops; 1,291 of those samples were organically grown, about 1.3 percent.

The Agriculture Department data showed that 73 percent of the conventionally grown foods had residue from at least one pesticide and were six times as likely as organic to contain multiple pesticide residues; only 23 percent of the organic samples of the same groups had any residues.

The California data found residues in 31 percent of the conventional food and 6.5 percent in the organic. Consumer Union tests found residues on 79 percent of the conventional samples and 27 percent on the organic.

The study also looked at why organic foods contained any pesticide residues. When residues of persistent insecticides, like DDT, were excluded, the percentage of organic samples with residues dropped to 13 percent from 23.

The findings were minimized by opponents of organic agriculture, like the American Council on Science and Health, which gets 40 percent of its financing from industry.

"So what?" said the council's Dr. Gilbert Ross. "The health risks associated with pesticide residues on food are not at all established. I think the amount of pesticide residues to which we are exposed on our foods pose no significant health risks to human beings."

The Environmental Protection Agency disagrees and has been working to reduce pesticide levels since 1996.

Dr. Groth said the amount of residues in conventional food was well below the level that is clearly unsafe but above the level scientists say is probably safe.

"There is a large gray area in between," Dr. Groth said, "and we need a wide safety margin which is not wide enough with conventional produce. This is especially true when we talk about infants and children because they are still developing."

Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy group financed by foundations, said, "The report shows what we suspected all along: if you want to reduce your exposure to pesticides, eating organic is a very good way."
------------------------------
DUH!!
 
<i>" The findings were minimized by opponents of organic agriculture, like the American Council on Science and Health, which gets 40 percent of its <b>financing from industry</b>" ... "Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a <b>nonprofit research and advocacy group financed by foundations</B>, said, "The report shows what we suspected all along: if you want to reduce your exposure to pesticides, eating organic is a very good way."</i>

Kmguru: you knew I was going to answer this kind of post. Well, here we go again for a friendly chat. Can you tell me which is the difference of being funded by undisclosed industry or undisclosed foundations? <b>Money have the same green color...</B> and donors are pushing boths their own agendas. Thus, in this subject the score remains a tie. So, besides of the "smell" of the funding, what really counts --and it is the only thing <b>that must be taken into acount</b>-- are the facts presented by both sides. (Environmental Working Group... nonprofit? You should see their account books and their bank account... if they ever let you do such thing).

"Money talks", they say, but scientific facts also have its voice (although lately it has been somewhat muffled by the cataract of misinformation that plagues the media) and persons interested in "seeking the truth" (no pun intended truthseeker), should listen carefully to its barely audible voice. In this board Dr. Bruce Ames and his valuable research on synthetic and natural pesticides have been mentioned many times, but I don't think people really pay attention to what he says. There is no worse deaf than the one that refuses to listen. Curiosly enough, Bruce Ames is a scientist that cannot be accused of ties with the industry, or corporate interests. He is beyond that. Period.

As we remember, Bruce Ames has been telling the public they shouldn't be worrying about pesticide residues in foods and crops, because the amount found are negligible. He will never get tired of saying that we should worry more about smoking, or the insufficient amount of fruit and vegetables in our diet. He also points out that weight by weight, organic food has more carcinogenic substances than pesticide treated vegetables. Should I repeat here the scientific facts behind his arguments?

Briefly (but I can get really lengthy if you want) plants produce their own "natural pesticides" that are more carcinogenics than synthetic ones. Besides, everybody I know wash their lettuces before eating them in their salads. That should take care for any minute amounts of residues. When plants are sprayed with pesticides, plagues and predators are gone. The plants "feel" that and stop producing pesticides.

Another good point made by Dr. Ames, is that pesticide treated crops are much cheaper than organic crops, thus they become available in greater amounts to poor people, the fraction of population whose defenses are more reduced than affluent people. Cheap fruits and vegetables can be the basis of a healthy diet for children, than otherwise would grow deprived of the health benefits of vegetables and fruits.

But the interesting thing in the article by Marian Burros (a well known green advocate) is the way she says things concealing the facts that would throw her article to the paper waste basket. She says that the analysis "shows that they contain a third as many pesticide residues". No wonder, because they were looking precisely for pesticides. She does not tell that those levels of pesticides found are within the "safe levels" set by the paranoid EPA, limits that are absurdly low, in the range of <B>thousands of times lower</B> than the dose levels found to cause some effects on laboratory rats. In further posts I will tell you about the way these tests are conducted on rats, and the way the "safe levels" are set, and why these levels are stupid and useless. They only add higher costs to produces and make you pay more for your food.

Take some time free and see Dr. Ames website. You might find something interesting there:

<A HREF=http://mcb.berkeley.edu/faculty/BMB/amesb.html><b> http://mcb.berkeley.edu/faculty/BMB/amesb.html> </B></A>
 
More links

More links on Bruce Ames:

<A HREF="http://www.google.com.ar/search?q=%28Bruce+Ames%29&hl=es&btnG=B%FAsqueda+en+Google&meta="><b>Search results in Google</B></A>

<A HREF="http://www.fumento.com/ames.html"><b>Bruce Ames by Fumento</B></A>

<A HREF="http://reason.com/amesint.shtml"><B>Reason magazine interviews Bruce Ames</B></A>
 
Xev, you are right in asking reasonable questions. Go to the links I posted above, and see what says the man that knows more on the subject than any other living man on Earth. good luck!

But, no. There is not a single scientific reason that shows organic food is safer or healthioer than conventional (pesticide sprayed) food. On the contrary, Bruce Ames says <b>they are not.</B>
 
Last time i bought organic salad there was a worm in there :)
i buy the stuff with the pesticides from now on.
 
Now that we are on the subject of food. Here is what I do.

At home, I try to use minimum amount of pesticides if I can. One has to use a lot of pesticides to keep the cabbage worms at bay as observed by me at a farmers patch half a mile away. Pesticides are neuro-toxins and prolonged exposure can hasten arthritis and other physical problems.

So, we wash our vegetables with a non-toxic soap solution (you can buy at any grocery store) since the solution sprayed is oil based and washing with regular water will not wash it off. There is no danger of eating cabbage because it grows inside out. So if we throw away the top layer.

Most commercial vegetables are grown without trace minerals added. The Chinese use trace minerals in their fertilizers but I am not sure how prevalant it is in US. So, to be safe, we use a liquid trace mineral compound in our drinking water from time to time. For home gardening, you can find feritizers with trace minerals added.

We use commercial meat but do our best to remove any fat deposits reasoning that it is the fat tissue that accumulates any toxins and excess hormones. Besides it is healthy for you. We use distilled water for drinking (we have two distillers that run in the winter). Before I started using distilled water, I used to have mild stomach discomfort regularly. Now it is gone.

Because we live in a country setting, our air is clean. But to be safe side, our central A/C has a UV germicidal lamp added to keep the air germ free.

Since we have taken so much precautions, we do go out to eat and expose ourselves to the outside world like anybody else. My theory is that occasional exposure to low level toxins and viruses is good for you, because they act as kind of vaccination.

It is the prolonged exposure that can kill you.
 
Excellent thought Km.
oh!BTW,hows the project going on?

just curious...



bye!
 
All plants in the world produces their own pesticides, chemical toxins aimed at defending themselves from predators as molds, fungus, insects, birds, etc. These toxins are found in higher levels in organic crops than in conventional, "sprayed", crops. But there are some fundamental matters that must be considered:

1) Toxins are chemical substances, wether they are "natural" or "synthetic". Synthetic toxics act on living things in the same chemical way as "natural" toxins --in the same way as "natural" background radiation act in the same manner as "man-made" radiation.

2) All toxins, given in the huge amounts given to rats in labs will eventually induce a process called "mitogenesis", a uncontrolled division and proliferation of cells, commonly known as tumors, or more popular, "cancer". Even aspirin, table salt, alfalfa sprouts, or peeper will do it.

3) Even so, the minute amounts of toxins found in crops, wheter "synthetic" or "natural", are extremely low, and there are minimal possibilities that they would be found in toxic levels (with some exceptions, related to misuse of pesticides, or in some medicinal herbs that are extremely poisonous. Natural, "per se", it´s not necesarilly better, safer, or healthier than "artificial".

4) Vegetables and fruits, besides of having some toxic, carcinogenic, natural substances in them, also have many positive and heathful chemicals in them that have anticarcinogenic properties that will counteract the carcinogenic effects of the toxic substances. Thus, in average, either "organic" or "pesticide sprayed" crops are quite safe for eating. If one wants to get picky and make comparisons dealing with nanograms, "rodent/potency", toxicity, teratogenicity potency, and so on, you would have to recognize that "organic crops" are a little less safer than "pesticide sprated" crops. This is related to the way organic farmers fertilize their crops, using mostly animal manure that normally carry bacteria (E-coli, campilobacter, etc)

5) Eat organic, or pesticide sprayed, does not matter. They won't kill you. One is more expensive than the other. If high prices prevent people from buying vegetables and fruits that contain valuable substances, then organic is conspiring against public health. If you are rich and can afford the higher prices and added risks of bacteria, (and if that soothes your green neurosis) then buy organic. It's your choice.

Kmguru: what you say sounds reasonable, although I play a different game. I would like to point you something real: if you live in s highly sterilized environment as you seem to live, your defenses <b>will become lower and lower</b>. The function makes the organ. If your inmune system does not have to fight back bacteria and toxins, it will stop working. My sons have been grown --on purpose-- playing barefoted in mud, just washing their wounds with regular soap (only disinfectants when they had profound cuts (for anaerobic bacteria: tetanus (?))-- so their inmune system is in perfect working shape. Their health and mine are great --even we have lived in indian villages for months, where cleaningness is completely absent.
 
Please, read Dr. Bruce Ames report on <A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Nat-vs-Synth.html"><b>"Synthetic versus Natural"</B></A> to have a scientific view of the subject.
 
Some info on Carbamates:

<hr>

<p align="center"><font size="5">Carbaryl</font></p>

<hr>

<p><font face="Arial Black"><u>Trade and Other Names</u><strong>:</strong></font>
Product names include Adios, Bugmaster, Carbamec, Carbamine,
Crunch, Denapon, Dicarbam, Hexavin, Karbaspray, Nac, Rayvon,
Septene, Sevin, Tercyl, Torndao, Thinsec, Tricarnam, and Union
Carbide 7744. </p>

<p><font face="Arial Black"><u>Regulatory</u><strong><u> </u></strong><u>Status</u><strong>:</strong></font>
Carbaryl is a General Use Pesticide (GUP). However, various
formulations vary widely in toxicity. For example, it is
categorized as toxicity class I - highly toxic for Tercyl;
toxicity class II - moderately toxic for Sevin 803; and toxicity
class III - slightly toxic for some other products. Products
containing carbaryl may bear the Signal Word DANGER - POISON,
WARNING, or CAUTION depending on the product formulation.</p>

<p><font face="Arial Black"><u>Chemical Class</u>:</font>
carbamate</p>

<p><font face="Arial Black"><u>Introduction</u><strong>:</strong></font>
Carbaryl is a wide-spectrum carbamate insecticide which controls
over 100 species of insects on citrus, fruit, cotton, forests,
lawns, nuts, ornamentals, shade trees, and other crops, as well
as on poultry, livestock, and pets. It is also used as a
molluscicide and an acaricide. Carbaryl works whether it is
ingested into the stomach of the pest or absorbed through direct
contact. It is available as bait, dusts, wettable powders,
granules, dispersions and suspensions.</p>

<p><font face="Arial Black"><u>Formulation</u>:</font> It is
available as bait, dusts, wettable powders, granules,
dispersions, and suspensions. </p>

<p><font face="Arial Black"><u>Toxicological Effects</u>:</font></p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Acute toxicity:</strong> Carbaryl is moderately
to very toxic. It can produce adverse effects in humans
by skin contact, inhalation, or ingestion. The symptoms
of acute toxicity are typical of the other carbamates.
Direct contact of the skin or eyes with moderate levels
of this pesticide can cause burns. Inhalation or
ingestion of very large amounts can be toxic to the
nervous and respiratory systems resulting in nausea,
stomach cramps, diarrhea, and excessive salivation. Other
symptoms at high doses include sweating, blurring of
vision, incoordination, and convulsions. The only
documented fatality from carbaryl was through intentional
ingestion. The oral LD50 of carbaryl ranges from 250
mg/kg to 850 mg/kg in rats, and from 100 mg/kg to 650
mg/kg in mice [8,24]. The inhalation LC50 in rats is
greater than 200 mg/L [24]. Low doses can cause minor
skin and eye irritation in rabbits, a species in which
carbaryl's dermal LD50 has been measured at greater than
2000 mg/kg [8].</li>
<li><strong>Chronic toxicity:</strong> Not Available</li>
<li><strong>Reproductive effects: </strong>No reproductive or
fetal effects were observed during a long-term study of
rats fed high doses of carbaryl [8].</li>
<li><strong>Teratogenic effects: </strong>The evidence for
teratogenic effects due to chronic exposure is minimal in
test animals. Birth defects in rabbit and guinea pig
offspring occurred only at dosage levels that were highly
toxic to the mother [25].</li>
<li><strong>Mutagenic effects:</strong> Carbaryl has been
shown to affect cell division and chromosomes in rats
[24]. However, numerous studies indicate that carbaryl
poses only a slight mutagenic risk [8,26]. There is a
possibility that carbaryl may react in the human stomach
to form a more mutagenic compound, but this has not been
demonstrated. In sum, the evidence suggests that carbaryl
is unlikely to be mutagenic to humans [26,27].</li>
<li><strong>Carcinogenic effects:</strong> Technical-grade
carbaryl has not caused tumors in long-term and lifetime
studies of mice and rats. Rats were administered high
daily doses of the pesticide for 2 years, and mice for 18
months, with no signs of carcinogenicity [28]. While
N-nitrosocarbaryl, a possible by-product, has been shown
to be carcinogenic in rats at high doses, this product
has not been detected. Thus, the evidence indicates that
carbaryl is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans [29].</li>
<li><strong>Organ toxicity:</strong> Ingestion of carbaryl
affects the lungs, kidneys, and liver. Inhalation will
also affect the lungs [5,30]. Nerve damage can occur
after administration of high doses for 50 days in rats
and pigs [18]. Several studies indicate that carbaryl can
affect the immune system in animals and insects. Male
volunteers who consumed low doses of carbaryl for 6 weeks
did not show symptoms, but tests indicate slight changes
in their body chemistry [8]. A 2-year study with rats
revealed no effects at or below a dose of 10 mg/kg/day
[25].</li>
</ul>

<ul>
<li><strong>Fate in humans and animals:</strong> Most
animals, including humans, readily break down carbaryl
and rapidly excrete it in the urine and feces. Workers
occupationally exposed by inhalation to carbaryl dust
excreted 74% of the inhaled dose in the urine in the form
of a breakdown product [24]. The metabolism of up to 85%
of carbaryl occurs within 24 hours after administration
[24].</li>
</ul>

<p><font face="Arial Black"><u>Ecological Effects</u>:</font></p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Effects on birds:</strong> Carbaryl is
practically nontoxic to wild bird species. The LD50
values are greater than 2000 mg/kg in mallards and
pheasants, 2230 mg/kg in quail, and 1000 to 3000 mg/kg in
pigeons [10].</li>
<li><strong>Effects on aquatic organisms:</strong> Carbaryl
is moderately toxic to aquatic organisms, such as rainbow
trout (LC50 of 1.3 mg/L), and bluegill (LC50 of 10 mg/L)
[10]. Some accumulation of carbaryl can occur in catfish,
crawfish, and snails, as well as in algae and duckweed.
Residue levels in fish were 140-fold greater than the
concentration of carbaryl in water. In general, due to
its rapid metabolism and rapid degradation, carbaryl
should not pose a significant bioaccumulation risk in
alkaline waters. However, under conditions below
neutrality, it may be significant [10].</li>
<li><strong>Effects on other organisms:</strong> Carbaryl is
lethal to many non-target insects, including bees and
beneficial insects [10].</li>
</ul>

<p><font face="Arial Black"><u>Environmental Fate</u>:</font> </p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Breakdown in soil and groundwater:</strong>
Carbaryl has a low persistence in soil. Degradation of
carbaryl in the soil is mostly due to sunlight and
bacterial action. It is bound by organic matter and can
be transported in soil runoff. Carbaryl has a half-life
of 7 to 14 days in sandy loam soil and 14 to 28 days in
clay loam soil. Carbaryl has been detected in groundwater
in three separate cases in California [14].</li>
<li><strong>Breakdown in water:</strong> In surface water,
carbaryl is broken down by bacteria and through
hydrolysis. Evaporation is very slow. Carbaryl has a
half-life of about 10 days at neutral pH. The half-life
varies greatly with water acidity [14].</li>
<li><strong>Breakdown in vegetation:</strong> Degradation of
carbaryl in crops occurs by hydrolysis inside the plants.
It has a short residual life of less than 2 weeks. The
metabolites of carbaryl have lower toxicity to humans
than carbaryl itself. The breakdown of this substance is
strongly dependent on acidity and temperature [8].</li>
</ul>

<p><font face="Arial Black"><u>Physical Properties</u>:</font> </p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Appearance:</strong> Carbaryl is a solid that
varies from colorless to white or gray, depending on the
purity of the compound. The crystals are odorless.
Carbaryl is stable to heat, light, and acids. It is not
stable under alkaline conditions. It is noncorrosive to
metals, packaging materials, and application equipment.</li>
<li><strong>Chemical Name:</strong> 1-napthyl methylcarbamate
[10]</li>
<li><strong>CAS Number: </strong>63-25-2</li>
<li><strong>Molecular Weight:</strong> 201.23</li>
<li><strong>Water Solubility:</strong> 40 mg/L @ 30 C [10]</li>
<li><strong>Solubility in Other Solvents:</strong>
dimethylformaldehyde v.s; acetone s.; dimethyl sulfoxide
v.s.; cyclohexanone s. [10]</li>
<li><strong>Melting Point: </strong>142 C [10]</li>
<li><strong>Vapor Pressure:</strong> &lt;5.3 mPa @ 25 C [10]</li>
<li><strong>Partition Coefficient:</strong> Not Available</li>
<li><strong>Adsorption Coefficient: </strong>300 [10]</li>
</ul>

<p><font face="Arial Black"><u>Exposure Guidelines</u>:</font></p>

<ul>
<li><strong>ADI: </strong>0.01 mg/kg/day [10]</li>
<li><strong>MCL</strong>: Not Available</li>
<li><strong>RfD:</strong> 0.1 mg/kg/day [20]</li>
<li><strong>PEL:</strong> 5 mg/m3 (8-hour) [31]</li>
<li><strong>HA</strong>: 0.7 mg/L (lifetime) [24]</li>
<li><strong>TLV</strong>: Not Available</li>
</ul>
 
Edufer: I think, you misunderstood my posting. My feelings are as follows:

1. Natural pesticides that the plants produce are not the same chemical composition as synthetic ones - they can not be patented if that would have been the case.

2. Synthetic organic chemicals even when altered slightly (such as mirrored) produce different effect on the body.

3. Not all bacterias are harmful to the body.

4. Humans have been eating food for thousands of years and hence the body understands the specific natural pesticides and the liver knows how to disassemble the molecules.

5. It is the synthetic pesticides that the body has no idea what it is.

6. We do not live in a setrile environment even though we try. My philosophy is, why let your body fight the assult every day - day after day? Give it a rest to fight the battle another day. Stress is good for you. But prolonged stress can literally kill you. That is what happened to a friend of ours who died of liver cancer. The only difference in our living and hers was - she loved raw meat (the red the better) and loved gardening and used herbicides and pesticides a lot.

7. In a technological society, we use our minds a lot more than our body. Again, why put body into stress by introducing anti-life agents. A sound mind in a sound body.
 
kmguru

First, read this:
<center>
<font color=red size=5><b>Organic Foods? No, Thanks!</b></font>

By Dennis T. Avery, in American Outlook, Autum, 1998

<i>(Quoted in "Notable and Quotable", The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 8, 1998)</i></center>

According to recent data compiled by the <i>U.S. Centers for Disease Control</i> (CDC), people who eat organic and "natural" foods <b>are eight times as likely</b> as the rest of the population to be attacked <b>by a deadly new strain of E-coli bacteria</b> (O157:H7). This new E-coli is attacking tens of thousands of people per year, all over the world. It is causing <b>permanent liver and kidney damage</b> in many of its victims.

Consumers of organic foods are also more likely to be attacked by a relatively new, more virulent strain of the infamous salmonella bacteria. Salmonella was America's biggest food-borne death risk until the new E-coli O157 came along.

Organic food is more dangerous than conventionally grown produce because organic farmers use manure as the major source of fertilizer for their food crops. Animal manure is the biggest reservoir of these nasty bacteria that are afflicting and killing so many people.

Organic farmers compound the contamination problem through their reluctance to use anti-microbial preservatives, chemical washes, pasteurization, or even chlorinated water to rid their products of dangerous bacteria. One organic grower summed up the community's attitudes as follows: <b><i>"Pasteurization has only been around a hundred years or so; what do you think people did before that?"</i></b>

The answer is simple:<font color=red><b> They died young.</b> </font>

<center><HR width=200 height=10 color=red></center>
Now let's analize your post on Carbaryl:

As you post show, the "horrible" Carbaryl" is not as horrible as they want to make it appear:

<b>"Reproductive effects: <font color=red>No reproductive or fetal effects were observed</font></b> during a long-term study of rats fed high doses of carbaryl " ... <b>Teratogenic effects:</b> The evidence for teratogenic effects due to chronic exposure is <b>minimal in test animals.</b> Birth defects in rabbit and guinea pig offspring occurred only at dosage levels that were <b>highly toxic</b> to the mother" ... "<b>Mutagenic effects:</B> Carbaryl has been shown to affect cell division and chromosomes in rats [24]. However, numerous studies indicate that carbaryl <b>poses only a slight mutagenic risk </b>[8,26]. There is a <b>possibility</b> that carbaryl may react in the human stomach to form a more mutagenic compound, but this <b>has not been demonstrated</b>. In sum, the evidence suggests that <b>carbaryl is unlikely to be mutagenic to humans"</b> ... <b>"Carcinogenic effects:</b> Technical-grade carbaryl <b>has not caused tumors</b> in long-term and lifetime studies of mice and rats"... <b>Effects on birds:</b> Carbaryl is <b>practically nontoxic</b> to wild bird species".

Did you want to show a dangerous pesticide? It seems to be quite a safe prduct.
 
Kmguru, comments on your last post

<b>quote:</B><i> 1. Natural pesticides that the plants produce are not the same chemical composition as synthetic ones.</i>

Of course, but chemical substances and toxins contained in those natural pesticides have the same chemical reactions as synthetic substances. Chemicals are made out of molecules that acts following the same chemical rules.

<b>quote:</B><i> 2. Synthetic organic chemicals even when altered slightly (such as mirrored) produce different effect on the body.</I>

Different effects from what? Natural toxins are as toxic as synthetic ones. The chemistry is the same.

<b>quote:</b><i> 3. Not all bacterias are harmful to the body.</i>

Sure, but e-coli and campilobacter are quite harmful, as cholera and many thousand more. Remember what the U.S. Centers for Diseases Control said?

<b>quote:</B> <i> 4. Humans have been eating food for thousands of years and hence the body understands the specific natural pesticides and the liver knows how to disassemble the molecules.</i>

We come again at the same point as in 1 and 2. Antibiotics can compared to food. They are quite new to mankind, and the liver seems to be doing quite well dissasembling them.

<b>quote: </b></I>5. It is the synthetic pesticides that the body has no idea what it is.</i>

The body only recognizes chemical substances. It does not differentiate "synthetic" from "natural",
for the simple reason that molecules on all toxins are natural.

<b>Quote: </b><i>"6. ...why let your body fight the assult every day - day after day?!</i>

For the excercise. But don't overdo it. An <b>excess</b> of training is bad, all athletes know that. But relaxing the whole day long at your couch will eventually kill you.

<b>Quote:</b><i> Stress is good for you. But prolonged stress can literally kill you.</i>

See? You said it too...

<b>Quote: </b><i>That is what happened to a friend of ours who died of liver cancer. The only difference in our living and hers was - she loved raw meat (the red the better) and loved gardening and used herbicides and pesticides a lot.</i>

Sorry kmguru, but that's anecdotal, That is completely unscientific. I also eat almost raw meat, and have been dealing with pesticides in our ranch for more than 40 years. And my liver is in such a fantastic shape that my doctor envy it. Perhaps it is due to my low alcohol intake (never hard liquor, some beers and wine at lunch and dinner). But my case is also anecdotal, so here we are, back to the starting point. The nanny that brought us up never, but NEVER drank a drop of alcohol, however, she died at 60 from cirrhosis. Another anecdote. What we need are well designed (and costly) epidemilogical studies. Please read:
<center>
<A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Epide.html"> <b>Report on Epidemiology</b></A>
</center>
<b>Quote: </b><i>7. In a technological society, we use our minds a lot more than our body. Again, why put body into stress by introducing anti-life agents. A sound mind in a sound body.</i>

We are subjected to two kind of stresses: from our minds (emotional stress), and from things outside us (mechanical, physical, and chemical). Both are damaging to the body, when they are <b>excessive</b>. Here, again, and for ever, the Golden Axiom of toxicology is applied: <b>"The Dose Makes the Poison".</b> Emotional stess is known to lower the efectiveness of the inmune system, that's why people in modern cities are not as healthy as people living in the country, even though "citizens" might have better access to health care and medical attention.

There are hundred of thousand of people that ignore they are "HIV-positive", and have been living with that for decades. But tell a neurotic "citizen" he is HIV-positive, and he´ll be put into such a state of stress that his inmune system will be impaired --AIDS will take over. "<b>Acquired Inmuno Deficiency Syndrome</b>": Acquired from where? From the mind, the media, the horror stories, etc. But this is something that belongs to another topic.

Summing up: If you way of living makes you happy, don´t change it. Just keep improving it by acquirng new scientific facts that will help you reach an advanced age. I don't know how old I will become, but I hope the genes we have in the family will make me live until about 90. My father was the one that died younger: at 73 from prostate cancer. The rest have died beyond 87 from simple aging. They were strong and healthy, skiing, playing golf and riding horses. Their heart just gave up during sleep...
 
Bottom Line, Edufer:

We do not have a major difference of opinion. The key items we agree on are: (1)Dont let your body get assulted by environmental toxins, antibiotics, radiation etc etc... (2) Just keep improving your body by acquirng new scientific facts that will help you reach an advanced age.

There is one catch: some scientific facts are not facts for quite sometime. I normally reduce that time frame by doing my own research. For example: four years ago, I thought metformin can be used in PCOS. It took that long for most researchers to catch up and now, it is prescribed in US with very good results. Even then some doctors have no idea. So I had to compile research documents to send to our friends who can show them to their doctors.
 
Back
Top