Organically Grown Fruits and Vegetables

Originally posted by Metal Brain
There is a lag effect from pesticides that were banned decades ago. It is probably a combination of those banned pesticides that show up in meat and dairy products high in fat and the pesticides that are still being used on fruits and vegetables.

If pesticides are the cause then it should be possible to find some sort of correlation. If you are correct and there is a lag effect of banned products then we should start seeing a reduction at some point. Can you estimate when that reduction should be seen?

As you can see the accumulation effect of long ago banned pesticides is still present where they were used. It is reasonable to assume that no apparent trend is detectable if the above link is right.
It is also reasonable to assume, in the absence of trends, that your claim is not based on observed facts. There are many many possible causes and no reason whatsoever to think pesticides is the most likely one.

This page makes interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_pesticides

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I can say that my mother did not drink fluoridated water though.

It is a known fact that cancers have multiple causes and also complex genetic and environmental interactions. Although it may be possible in specific cases to determine the cause of a persons cancer, it is outright wrong, to take one example of cancer and make projections from that as to the most likely cause of that cancer for the general population. Essentially I am saying that whatever the cause of your mothers cancer, it is irrelevant to the question of what is causing the upward trend in incidences of that cancer. It may have been the same cause, or it may not have. We don't know, and can't know until both causes have been identified.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If pesticides are the cause then it should be possible to find some sort of correlation. If you are correct and there is a lag effect of banned products then we should start seeing a reduction at some point. Can you estimate when that reduction should be seen?

[b]As you can see the accumulation effect of long ago banned pesticides is still present wher ...[text shortened]... e many many possible causes and no reason whatsoever to think pesticides is the most likely one.

"Can you estimate when that reduction should be seen?"

No. How could I? How could anyone with any accuracy?

I never claimed my theory was anything more than that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is a known fact that cancers have multiple causes and also complex genetic and environmental interactions. Although it may be possible in specific cases to determine the cause of a persons cancer, it is outright wrong, to take one example of cancer and make projections from that as to the most likely cause of that cancer for the general population. Ess ...[text shortened]... cause, or it may not have. We don't know, and can't know until both causes have been identified.

"It is a known fact that cancers have multiple causes and also complex genetic and environmental interactions."

Lymphoma is not known to be hereditary.

Hey Captain Obvious, Can't you read? I have been saying all along it is nearly impossible to prove because of too many factors. I said it was a theory. I asked you if you had one. A simple "no" would have done just fine.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
No. How could I? How could anyone with any accuracy?

If you knew when the pesticides in question were discontinued, and at what age or exposure rates the effects are expected, you could predict it very accurately. At a minimum you could predict a significant drop in anyone born after the discontinue date.

I never claimed my theory was anything more than that.
Better call it a hypothesis. The scientific thing to do with a hypothesis is test it against observations and try to make predictions etc. Trying to pretend that nobody could ever know if your hypothesis is correct suggests you think it is wrong but don't want to be found out.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you knew when the pesticides in question were discontinued, and at what age or exposure rates the effects are expected, you could predict it very accurately. At a minimum you could predict a significant drop in anyone born after the discontinue date.

[b]I never claimed my theory was anything more than that.
Better call it a hypothesis. The scie ...[text shortened]... now if your hypothesis is correct suggests you think it is wrong but don't want to be found out.[/b]

By following links from the Wikipedia page "Health Effects of Pesticides" I found the following two papers which are relevant to this discussion:

Cancer health effects of pesticides
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2231435/

Non-cancer health effects of pesticides
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2231436/

The papers are relevant to agricultural workers and other people at risk of significant exposure (farmers families, gardeners etc.). They did not measure effects from exposure via the food chain.

Originally posted by DeepThought
By following links from the Wikipedia page "Health Effects of Pesticides" I found the following two papers which are relevant to this discussion:

Cancer health effects of pesticides
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2231435/

Non-cancer health effects of pesticides
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2231436/

The papers are re ...[text shortened]... rmers families, gardeners etc.). They did not measure effects from exposure via the food chain.

DeepThought, most all other contributors to this conversation have scientific frames of reference far above mine. In no way do I wish to intrude on this lively discussion but do wonder if now and then layman footnotes could be included. Thanks.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
See my reply to Humy the ignorant.

Cancer rates are not decreasing with the banning of certain chemicals known to cause cancer and radon detectors. That means something is being overlooked.
My mother died from lymphoma and rates are increasing. What is your theory for the increase? At least I have a theory and I think it is a good one. Do you have a theory?

Cancer rates are not decreasing with the banning of certain chemicals known to cause cancer and radon detectors.

-an indication that those banned chemicals were never the main causes for cancer. All the more reason to avoid the nee-jerk reaction to ban the harmless ones.

That means something is being overlooked.

No, it just confirms what we already knew which is they were never the main cause of most cancers.

My mother died from lymphoma and rates are increasing. What is your theory for the increase?

lifestyle -Smoking and obesity play there parts. So do chemicals naturally found in food. Many vegetables naturally contain known carcinogen . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen “...There are many natural carcinogens ...”
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/sep/06/medicalscience.healthandwellbeing
“...While the risk of getting cancer from fruit and vegetables remains small, most of that risk is said to come from naturally occurring carcinogens, generally the organic pesticides produced by the plants themselves to keep predators at bay. Broccoli, apples, onions, oranges, strawberries, lemons and mushrooms all contain acetaldehyde, a natural by-product of oxidation and a known human carcinogen.
…
Nitrates - which can be converted by the human body into carcinogenic nitrosamine compounds - are present in such seemingly inoffensive foods as celery, lettuce, kale and rhubarb. Nitrites, halfway to being nitrosamines already, are found in cured meats. There are carcinogens specific to tap water, basil, beer and mustard.
….
It is generally accepted that there is no such thing as a diet free from carcinogens,
...”
-although, obviously, I am not implying here that that is a significant cancer risk from fruit and veg.
So far, you have given no reason to believe that the tiny traces of manufactured pesticides currently in food are generally any more dangerous than naturally occurring pesticides in food .

At least I have a theory and I think it is a good one.

What, that all insecticides cause cancer even those that have virtually zero toxicity? That is a crap theory. Why not just stick to the known scientific facts which explain it all just fine?

Do you have a theory?

Why do I need one when we have scientific facts based on the evidence? There is no big scientific mystery here so no need to make new theories not based on the evidence. There are many causes of cancer, not just one cause.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you knew when the pesticides in question were discontinued, and at what age or exposure rates the effects are expected, you could predict it very accurately. At a minimum you could predict a significant drop in anyone born after the discontinue date.

[b]I never claimed my theory was anything more than that.
Better call it a hypothesis. The scie ...[text shortened]... now if your hypothesis is correct suggests you think it is wrong but don't want to be found out.[/b]

If predicting it can be done as accurately as you claim why don't you do that or find someone that did? I have better thing to do.

You know full well there are many factors that contribute to cancer and other illnesses. It would take a long time. How long did it take to prove tobacco smoking causes cancer without a doubt? You would think it would be quick and easy but it was not. It takes time to do studies, especially when you get so much resistance from the corporations that profit from their cancer causing products.

I really don't even need to debate this. Organically grown fruits and vegetables have less pesticides on them and that is a fact. You and Humy can argue that consuming less pesticides is not better for our health if you want, but I doubt any rational person would believe that. I think I have proved my case. I'll let public opinion decide.

Originally posted by humy

Cancer rates are not decreasing with the banning of certain chemicals known to cause cancer and radon detectors.

-an indication that those banned chemicals were never the main causes for cancer. All the more reason to avoid the nee-jerk reaction to ban the harmless ones.

That means something is being overlooked.

...[text shortened]... ake new theories not based on the evidence. There are many causes of cancer, not just one cause.

You continually make false assertions about me. I never said ALL pesticides cause cancer. Now you are resorting to lies which make you look irrational and/or desperate.

My mother did not smoke or drink and was not obese either. She tried to eat right, but she did buy fruits and fruit juice from the store. I bought some concentrated grape juice today so I can ferment it into wine. I'll bet it contains pesticides and I will consume it anyway. I can't afford organic grapes or grape juice to make wine.

I already stated in an earlier post that green potato skins contain a natural pesticide that should be avoided. When you get to be elderly you probably should avoid all vegetables in the nightshade family. It becomes harder to digest at that age. It is true that some vegetables are better for you than others. I have been aware of that for years. That changes nothing though. Spraying them with pesticides will not make them healthier to eat. Your point is mute.

As I said in an earlier post, I really don't even need to debate this. Organically grown fruits and vegetables have less pesticides on them and that is a fact. You can argue that consuming less pesticides is not better for our health if you want, but I doubt any rational person would believe that. I think I have proved my case. I'll let public opinion decide.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You continually make false assertions about me. I never said ALL pesticides cause cancer. Now you are resorting to lies which make you look irrational and/or desperate.

My mother did not smoke or drink and was not obese either. She tried to eat right, but she did buy fruits and fruit juice from the store. I bought some concentrated grape juice today s ...[text shortened]... tional person would believe that. I think I have proved my case. I'll let public opinion decide.

I never said ALL pesticides cause cancer

Good. So does that mean you would NOT sanction the banning of ALL pesticides used for growing food?

My mother did not smoke or drink and was not obese either.

So do you conclude from this that it must have been pesticides that caused the cancer?
If so, given that there are many known causes of cancer, why couldn't it be some other cause?
Did your mother ever eat red meat? because the heme iron in red meat is a known significant risk factor in cancer.

also, your mother getting cancer despite not being obese nor smoking doesn't mean that the increase in cancer rates could be due to these things.

I already stated in an earlier post that green potato skins contain a natural pesticide that should be avoided.

So why cannot the carcinogenic effect of these natural pesticides dwarf the carcinogenic effect of man made ones?
Why couldn't it have been a natural pesticides that caused your mother to have cancer and the veg not being organic had nothing to do with it?

Organically grown fruits and vegetables have less pesticides on them and that is a fact

Given that the bulk of pesticides are natural, “less” pesticide in this can mean ~0.01% less although that just depends. So eating non-organic fruits and vegetables could credibly make only a tiny trivial difference to cancer risk not worthy of mention. I suspect this is the case because, unlike with many natural insecticides, the man made ones are generally found in such tiny trace amounts in food at harvest time that they shouldn't have any significant biological effect compared to the ones that are naturally found in food at harvest time.

Even if one particular man made insecticide is found cause significant health risk in food, the rational response to that discovery would be to selectively ban just that one and not all chemicals the vast majority of which would be totally chemically unrelated. Would you agree?
Would you agree that each and every chemical should be considered on a case by case bases and we should discriminate between them by recognizing that some are generally harmful when applied (even when not misused in particular ) while others not?

Originally posted by DeepThought
The papers are relevant to agricultural workers and other people at risk of significant exposure (farmers families, gardeners etc.). They did not measure effects from exposure via the food chain.

Nobody here disputes the fact that significant exposure to some pesticides is bad for your health including causing cancer.

Originally posted by humy

Cancer rates are not decreasing with the banning of certain chemicals known to cause cancer and radon detectors.

-an indication that those banned chemicals were never the main causes for cancer. All the more reason to avoid the nee-jerk reaction to ban the harmless ones.

That means something is being overlooked.

...[text shortened]... ake new theories not based on the evidence. There are many causes of cancer, not just one cause.

to add to that, here is a scientific report on the causes of the increasing cancer rates and why they are expected to continue to increase:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/en/

note how when it lists the causes of cancer, there is no mention of pesticides nor chemicals in food. In fact, it doesn't even mention "organic" anywhere in that link let alone recommend eating only organic food. Why is that? -answer, because there is NO scientific evidence that man made pesticide residues in food are one of the main causes. At the very worst, man made pesticide residues in food are an extremely miner contributor.

Originally posted by humy

I never said ALL pesticides cause cancer

Good. So does that mean you would NOT sanction the banning of ALL pesticides used for growing food?

My mother did not smoke or drink and was not obese either.

So do you conclude from this that it must have been pesticides that caused the cancer?
If so, given that there are ...[text shortened]... some are generally harmful when applied (even when not misused in particular ) while others not?

"Good. So does that mean you would NOT sanction the banning of ALL pesticides used for growing food?"

Of course I would not ban all pesticides. I never said I supported that at all. It is like you debate based on false assumptions. That gets really annoying. Are you forgetting the OP of this thread? This is about whether or not organic fruits and vegetables are safer than non-organic. It is a no brainer. Less pesticides mean healthier food....pretty darn simple and you know I am right, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.

"So do you conclude from this that it must have been pesticides that caused the cancer?"

You know I don't conclude that as an absolute fact. Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to? Do you have Alzheimers disease or is it your goal to just be annoying? I don't know how I could have been more clear to you two. How old are you? Are you elderly and senile?

"So why cannot the carcinogenic effect of these natural pesticides dwarf the carcinogenic effect of man made ones?"

There you go again, asking questions you already know the answer to. Once again, This is about whether or not organic fruits and vegetables are safer than non-organic. It is a no brainer. Less pesticides mean healthier food....pretty darn simple and you know I am right. It doesn't matter if an organically grown food is healthy to eat or not, YOU CAN'T ADD PESTICIDES AND EXPECT IT TO BE HEALTHIER TO EAT IT! DUHHH!!!!

You have lost the debate here. Move on. You are beating a dead horse.