pesticides: organic and conventional foods - JP Fitness Forums

coach hale · 10-17-2007, 07:01 AM

The following is an excerpt from MaxCondition Newsletter

"Question: Do conventional foods have higher levels of pesticides than organic foods?

Answer: The studies I have investigated have shown higher levels of pesticides in conventional foods. But are these levels high enough to cause negative impacts on health?

The following is an excerpt from Scientific Status Summary- Organic Foods. Journal of food Science- vol. 71, Nr.9, 2006

The FDA actually conducts its own market basket survey, the total diet study, which involves a market basket of 285 distinct foods analyzed for pesticide residues at the time the foods are ready for consumption. While the results for the total diet study have consistently shown low levels of pesticide residues in food samples, the FDA discontinued estimating dietary exposure to specific pesticides after 1991. From the 1991 total diet study, the highest daily average pesticide intake among different population subgroups (6- to 11- month old infants, 14- to 16 yr old men, and 60- to 65- y-old women) was compared directly with the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization/ WHO ADI values for 38 pesticides. Estimated exposures were less than 1% of the ADI values for 34 of the, with the remaining 4 pesticides contributing 1%, 1.8%, 2.7%, and 4.8% of the ADI values. To put such values in perspective, the ADI typically represents a value 100 times lower than the highest level of exposure to a pesticide given to the most sensitive animal species on a daily basis throughout it’s lifetime that has not caused any noticeable toxicological effect. A typical human exposure at 1% of the ADI represents an exposure 10000 times lower than levels that do not cause toxicity in animals. Such findings suggest that typical dietary exposure to pesticide residues in foods poses minimal risks to humans. From a practical standpoint, the marginal benefits of reducing human exposure to pesticides in the diet through increased consumption of organic produce appear to be insignificant.”

thanks
coach hale
www.maxcondition.com

Ian Kay · 10-17-2007, 02:09 PM

Well that sounds good. However, I still deal with what I assume are allergic reactions to some foods, so I wonder how insignificant these amounts really are. It's certiainly possible that I have allergic reactions to the "non-organic" elements in regular milk, green peppers and apples. Are the chemicals used in these three products similar in some way? The organic versions sit fine with me.

But I wonder because I know so many people with allergic reactions or intestinal issues with different vegetables, fruits and milk. Most seem to be fine with the organic versions. The term "allergy" sounds better than "poisonous", but when so many people have these issues, when does it become a legit problem? Perhaps blood samples may not show toxicity, but if the esophogus and digestive tract are inflamed, isn't this also a legit health issue?

coach hale · 10-19-2007, 07:43 AM

Do you have any Primary Research Data that validates people that consume conventional foods relative to organic foods have more allergic reactions to the food.

When you so many people report how many are many?

Anecdotes are not science.

thanks
Coach Hale
www.maxcondition.com

OldGuy · 10-19-2007, 08:37 AM

What exactly is your point, coach? If Ian feels that he is doing better with organic produce then your "science" doesn't mean shit. This is a personal decision. Personally I buy organic meats and produce every chance I get. I don't see any reason for dumping some foreign chemical into my system when I am eating, and I will aviod it.

Looking over your study, since there is no difference when consumed then let's get rid of all pesticides so everything is "organic".

Alan Aragon · 10-19-2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldGuy

What exactly is your point, coach? If Ian feels that he is doing better with organic produce then your "science" doesn't mean shit. This is a personal decision. Personally I buy organic meats and produce every chance I get. I don't see any reason for dumping some foreign chemical into my system when I am eating, and I will aviod it.

Looking over your study, since there is no difference when consumed then let's get rid of all pesticides so everything is "organic".

There's a nice little 2006 case study in Internal Medicine where investigators determined the subject's death (heart failure from hemoglobin suppression via hookwoom infestation) was due to a history strictly pesticide-free organic food consumption. Moral of the story: if you ditch the pesticides, you invite the pests.

OldGuy · 10-19-2007, 10:31 AM

One subject? Talk about anecdotal.

Ian Kay · 10-19-2007, 10:46 AM

Hmm, no, I don't have any scientific studies to back me up. I wasn't trying to refute yours, either. And I'd say I've spoken to at least a dozen other people that have had this allergic reaction to some non-organic, and then found no reaction when trying the organic version. This includes family, friends and clients. It's not a big number in terms of studies, but out in day-to-day life, you tend to wonder when 12 unrelated people all say something similar.

That's why I'm asking if, while pesticides may not cause long-term health problems, there might in fact be many cases in which a person would be better off switching to organic for allergy reasons.

There may be plenty of food allergies all around, but if there are a significant number of people with pesticide allergies, could this be jusitification for the value of organics? And when I say "significant" number, I don't mean scientifically. But if enough people find that in actuality they feel different (itching/no-itching/ intestinal difficulties or not) then I think it could be significant.

Interesting story on the buggers. I haven't thought in those terms. And if it's only the one guy, I won't worry too much. As long as there is no penis-shrinkage, that is.

By the way, I'm not some Green-Organic-Granola freak or anything. I eat plenty of non-organic foods. But fewer chemicals + less itching + less intestinal issues seems like a good thing to me.

Alan Aragon · 10-19-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldGuy

One subject? Talk about anecdotal.

It's a case study, take it for what you will, completely dismiss it if you want to. I personally think it raises a provocative point.

Ian Kay · 10-19-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

It's a case study, take it for what you will, completely dismiss it if you want to. I personally think it raises a provocative point.

It is provocative. But I believe OG and I aren't satisfied with something simply because it was done "officially" or "scientifically". That's not a knock on you, Alan, just a suggestion of where we might be coming from in response to that study.

And I certainly don't know Coach Hale very well, but his response to mine is a little awkward. I know where he is coming from : "Don't knock my numbers without your own". I get it. But I'm not trying to knock his facts. I'm just explaining what I've seen/heard/experienced. I'm not going to dismiss the "real life" (sorry, terrible term, but you know what I mean) experiences of myself and 12 other people simply because I can't report any "Primary Research Data" (capitalized :p). I'm also not going to come to any definite conclusions about it either. That's why I brought it up in here, to see if there is any evidence of the importance of allergies.

Alan Aragon · 10-19-2007, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Kay

It is provocative. But I believe OG and I aren't satisfied with something simply because it was done "officially" or "scientifically". That's not a knock on you, Alan, just a suggestion of where we might be coming from in response to that study.

And I certainly don't know Coach Hale very well, but his response to mine is a little awkward. I know where he is coming from : "Don't knock my numbers without your own". I get it. But I'm not trying to knock his facts. I'm just explaining what I've seen/heard/experienced. I'm not going to dismiss the "real life" (sorry, terrible term, but you know what I mean) experiences of myself and 12 other people simply because I can't report any "Primary Research Data" (capitalized :p). I'm also not going to come to any definite conclusions about it either. That's why I brought it up in here, to see if there is any evidence of the importance of allergies.

This to me boils down to defining the parameters of the discussion. Are we sharing personal anecdotes? If so, then cool. Are we discussing research? If so, then cool, let's pick it apart and discuss its strengths & limitations. The tendency for guys like myself & Jamie is to presume that when the original topic is research-based, then so should the ensuing discussion. It's very common in exchanges like this for folks in opposition to present their personal experience, but in the end, personal testimony is still more subject to uncontrolled variables than research. Therefore, it can't be considered as Objective (capitalized for emphasis

).

OldGuy · 10-19-2007, 11:31 AM

If so, Alan, then Coach Hale should define the purpose of his original post. Once he does then we could have a discussion.

The guy in the cast study died from this?

Ian Kay · 10-19-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

This to me boils down to defining the parameters of the discussion. Are we sharing personal anecdotes? If so, then cool. Are we discussing research? If so, then cool, let's pick it apart and discuss its strengths & limitations. The tendency for guys like myself & Jamie is to presume that when the original topic is research-based, then so should the ensuing discussion. It's very common in exchanges like this for folks in opposition to present their personal experience, but in the end, personal experience is still more subject to uncontrolled variables than research. Therefore, it can't be considered as Objective (capitalized for emphasis

).

That's understandable. I'm awful at hunting down/linking research.

But like I said before, I wasn't trying to tear down his initial post. I was just presenting a different angle, ableit an anecdotal one.

Perhaps a better first post from me might have been:

"Is there a similar study about allergens in non-organic vs. organic foods? The long-term 'toxicity' issue may be answered, but how about short-term inflammation? Several people I know - including myself - have found that certain non-organic foods cause a negative reaction (throat itching, intestinal difficulties), while their organic counterparts do not. Is there anything out there that addresses this?"

Aoife · 10-19-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Is there anything out there that addresses this?

And if there isn't, is that supposed to mean that the personal experiences of people who literally just substitute an organic food for a conventional --same species of food, but a difference of reaction levels?

I mean, we're not talking about much else being involved here necessarily to somehow negate the personal experiences/anecdotes of people other than no Official Science Dude writing the stuff down.

Ian Kay · 10-19-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aoife

And if there isn't, is that supposed to mean that the personal experiences of people who literally just substitute an organic food for a conventional --same species of food, but a difference of reaction levels?

I mean, we're not talking about much else being involved here necessarily to somehow negate the personal experiences/anecdotes of people other than no Official Science Dude writing the stuff down.

Well, sometimes studies can identify a pattern. Who knows, maybe something out there will be able to tell someone with itchy throat that "If you have a reaction to x, then you will likely have it to y"... or even "people that get itchy throats from x seem to be deficient in z". Hell, I dunno. I just like to have some kind of answer (or at least a suggested plan of action) for people when they ask me what's going on.

Lost Dog · 10-19-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

There's a nice little 2006 case study in Internal Medicine where investigators determined the subject's death (heart failure from hemoglobin suppression via hookwoom infestation) was due to a history strictly pesticide-free organic food consumption. Moral of the story: if you ditch the pesticides, you invite the pests.

I'm no nutritionist, but a lot of people (my long time customers and work friends who've seen me drop and keep the weight off) ask me nutrition questions/opinions. Organic foods, raw milk, etc. come up a lot. And, it's obvious that people forget why we have pesticides and pasteurization. Granted we know a lot more about these things now, so we can compensate, but still. Going organic might shift us from long term damage from the pesticides to short term damage from infections and parasites. But at least we have antibiotics to cure that stuff. Oh wait.

Those are bad, too.

Alan Aragon · 10-19-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldGuy

If so, Alan, then Coach Hale should define the purpose of his original post. Once he does then we could have a discussion.

The guy in the cast study died from this?

Jamie's an easy going guy, I'm sure he'd be happy to define the purpose of his original post. As for hookworm stuff, here's the case study I alluded to:

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/...45/13/827/_pdf