Organic foods

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Worst thing about the pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer run-off from farms is that usually the states that do most of the polluting don't end up realizing most of the cost, like the Mississippi River Dead Zone that is largely created by the run-off pollution of the midwestern agriculture into the Mississippi River.

 

[♪alt13]

Pesticides levels are federally regulated to be within safe limit for human consumption. Additionally, you should always thoroughly wash your produce. The risks are negligible, regardless of the essential nature of food.

Dude no one knows exactly what the safe limit is for most pesticides. It's an educated guess at best but more likely an industry claim. When people start getting sick and it is successfully linked to a specific chemical we ban it. We don't do 30 year studies in advance to protect from long term risks. The EPA and the FDA can only be somewhat confident of short term risks. Beyond that they are just watchdogs.

 

[Siro]

Bruh, pesticides affect more than the food you get at your grocery store.

Pesticide and herbicide run-off is a major thing polluting watersheds.

All human activities have an environmental cost. Organic farming is 25%-35% less efficient (in yield) than conventional farming, and thus have a higher land and resource cost. Nor can organic farming support the world population due to need of more resources and higher cost of products. But that's neither here nor there. I was simply responding to the claim that conventional food is less healthy than organic food because it's sprayed with pesticide. That's not really true. The health risk of pesticides on food is small if handled properly. If not handled properly, then both conventional and organic foods carry a risk, as demonstrated by the e.coli cases that spring up now and again from manure use in organic produce.

 

[Siro]

Dude no one knows what the safe limit is for most pesticides. It's an educated guess at best but more likely an industry claim. When people start getting sick and is successfully linked to a chemical we ban it. We don't do do 30 year studies in advance to protect from long term risks. The EPA and the FDA can only be somewhat confident of short term risks. Beyond that they are just watchdogs.

But then we use countless chemicals in practically every modern product. How do you know these chemicals in <insert a product that isn't essential for survival here> are safe over decades of use? Since we cannot rely on current knowledge on chemical safety as very few are tested in all concentration over lifetimes, none of it can be considered perfectly safe. The rational stance is to evaluate the information given the evidence at hand, not according to some arbitrary threshold of negative proof.

 

[♪alt13]

But then we use countless chemicals in practically every modern product. How do you know these chemicals in <insert a product that isn't essential for survival here> are safe over decades of use? Since we cannot rely on current knowledge on chemical safety as very few are tested in all concentration over lifetimes, none of it can be considered perfectly safe. The rational stance is to evaluate the information given the evidence at hand, not according to some arbitrary threshold of negative proof.

It isn't negative proof. Many pesticides on the market have been shown to cause birth defects, cancers, and other diseases. Some even say so on the label. (I have applied commercial herbicide and pesticide and have read the accompanying MSDS) These aren't what appear to be non-toxic chemicals that would surprise everyone if they turn out to have negative long term effects at low levels. They are chemicals that we know to be toxic. Again long term safe exposure levels are a guess at best.

 

[Siro]

It isn't negative proof. Many pesticides on the market have been shown to cause birth defects, cancers, and other diseases. Some even say so on the label. (I have applied commercial herbicide and pesticide and have read the accompanying MSDS) These aren't what appear to be non-toxic chemicals that would surprise everyone if they turn out to have negative long term effects at low levels. They are chemicals that we know to be toxic. Again long term safe exposure levels are a guess at best.

But the levels of these chemicals present in thoroughly washed produce is minute. There is risk in organic fertilizers and pesticides as well, specially if left unwashed (like e.coli outbreak in Germany in 2009). I'm really unaware of any meaningful health risks in eating conventionally produced food that had been washed. Are there any known risks?

 

[Gameface]

But the levels of these chemicals present in thoroughly washed produce is minute. There is risk in organic fertilizers and pesticides as well, specially if left unwashed (like e.coli outbreak in Germany in 2009). I'm really unaware of any meaningful health risks in eating conventionally produced food that had been washed. Are there any known risks?

Yes. You miss out on that special flavoring the pesticides add.

 

[♪alt13]

But the levels of these chemicals present in thoroughly washed produce is minute. There is risk in organic fertilizers and pesticides as well, specially if left unwashed (like e.coli outbreak in Germany in 2009). I'm really unaware of any meaningful health risks in eating conventionally produced food that had been washed. Are there any known risks?

Here this pretty much backs up what I have been saying(rewards outweigh the risks but the risks are very real/full impact of longterm effects is unknown but there is reason to believe it ain't good) and should be sufficient for you.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health/natural-health/pesticides/index.htm


For the tldr crowd

A lot of the data comes from studies of farmworkers, who work with these chemicals regularly. Studies have linked long-term pesticide exposure in this group to increased risk of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease; prostate, ovarian, and other cancers; depression; and respiratory problems. There’s some suggestion that adults and children living in farm communities could also be at risk for chronic health problems.



The rest of us may not handle the stuff, but we are exposed through food, water, and air. The fact that pesticide residues are generally below EPA tolerance limits is sometimes used as “proof” that the health risks are minimal. But the research used to set these tolerances is limited.

In a 2010 report on environmental cancer risks, the President’s Cancer Panel (an expert committee that monitors the country’s cancer program) wrote: “The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals. … Many of these chemicals have known or suspected carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties.” Endocrine disruptors can block or mimic the action of hormones, even at low doses. “Endocrine effects aren’t sufficiently factored into the EPA pesticide-tolerance levels,” Crupain says. “And there’s concern they could cause reproductive disorders; birth defects; and breast, prostate, and other hormone-related cancers.”

 

[franklin]

I don't know man. Mandatory or not, it is irrational to take the position that if one company used a chemical irresponsibly, we might as well stay away from all chemicals. All modern products involve synthetic chemicals and .

We have an overly stringent FDA and other regulatory agencies that monitor this stuff that most of us have no understanding of whatsoever. I wouldn't mind more education of the public into what is actually going on behind the scenes to control this stuff. Then again, too much information in the wrong ill informed hands will do more harm than good.

I do think Dalamon has a point about new chemicals having consequences that may or may not be discovered for decades. In my line of work there are just under 200 chemicals that are on a hazardous list. That's not a whole lot and it has not grown in a decade as far as I know. OTOH, these inventions, regardless of the occasional outrage in the grand scheme of things, have been enriching lives to the point where we are richer than ever and poverty worldwide is finally declining after who knows how many centuries or millennia of chaos.
Dalamaintnuthin actually makes a pretty damn good point even if he is not intending to. New chemical products are highly unknown and can go unregulated forever. Add a hydroxy to the 7th carbon instead of the 6th...

 

[Siro]

We have an overly stringent FDA and other regulatory agencies that monitor this stuff that most of us have no understanding of whatsoever. I wouldn't mind more education of the public into what is actually going on behind the scenes to control this stuff. Then again, too much information in the wrong ill informed hands will do more harm than good.

I do think Dalamon has a point about new chemicals having consequences that may or may not be discovered for decades. In my line of work there are just under 200 chemicals that are on a hazardous list. That's not a whole lot and it has not grown in a decade as far as I know. OTOH, these inventions, regardless of the occasional outrage in the grand scheme of things, have been enriching lives to the point where we are richer than ever and poverty worldwide is finally declining after who knows how many centuries or millennia of chaos.
Dalamaintnuthin actually makes a pretty damn good point even if he is not intending to. New chemical products are highly unknown and can go unregulated forever. Add a hydroxy to the 7th carbon instead of the 6th...

I'm not disputing any of that. But like you said, there are COUNTLESS chemicals with unknown long-term effects. And there is no way to account for all of them. And like I've already said, "natural" chemicals used in organic food carry a health risk as well. What we DO know, is that we're living longer and, with reasonable diet and exercise, healthier than ever. Just use the information available, without trying to shut yourself off from the modern world in pursuit of some delusion of natural purity.

 

[Siro]

Here this pretty much backs up what I have been saying(rewards outweigh the risks but the risks are very real/full impact of longterm effects is unknown but there is reason to believe it ain't good) and should be sufficient for you.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health/natural-health/pesticides/index.htm


For the tldr crowd

Not very different from what I've been saying, though. Levels generally deemed by the FDA to be safe, but there might be long term effects. I wrote a longer response, but then I decided against it. Our disagreement is a bit pedantic. I'm disagreeing with the mentality of shunning something for being synthetic because of unknown long term effects, because that would apply to everything we use. I don't disagree that such chemicals exist, or that they might have unknown long-term effects.

And hey, haven't we had discussions about futurism and transhumanism? I would've pegged you as a little less risk averse.

 

[♪alt13]

Not very different from what I've been saying, though. Levels generally deemed by the FDA to be safe, but there might be long term effects. I wrote a longer response, but then I decided against it. Our disagreement is a bit pedantic. I'm disagreeing with the mentality of shunning something for being synthetic because of unknown long term effects, because that would apply to everything we use. I don't disagree that such chemicals exist, or that they might have unknown long-term effects.

And hey, haven't we had discussions about futurism and transhumanism? I would've pegged you as a little less risk averse.

1st There is no might. The question isn't if there are harmful longterm effects, the question is the scale and scope of those effects. We know that pesticides can be harmful even at the exposure levels an average American would encounter.

2nd I'm not really all that risk averse but that doesn't make me delusional.

3rd Shunning synthetics when you can is probably a good idea. Think of it like beta testers. It's usually a good idea to let someone else find all the "bugs" in the system before you put your hardware/files at risk.

 

[Siro]

1st There is no might. The question isn't if there are harmful longterm effects, the question is the scale and scope of those effects. We know that pesticides can be harmful even at the exposure levels an average American would encounter.

2nd I'm not really all that risk averse but that doesn't make me delusional.

3rd Shunning synthetics when you can is probably a good idea. Think of it like beta testers. It's usually a good idea to let someone else find all the "bugs" in the system before you put your hardware/files at risk.

I don't wanna argue back and forth all night, so I'll just reiterate one last thing, then live with our disagreement. But your third point is unrealistic, and verges on being meaningless. Everything you use, from the keyboard you're typing on, to the clothes you wear, to the cleaning agents you use, to countless other daily occurrences, will introduce chemicals with unknown long term effects into your body. The fact remains, current knowledge and regulations have been sufficient, more or less, in limiting harm well enough to enable the vast majority to live longer and healthier lives (specially if you take into account preventable afflictions of chosen lifestyles, like obesity).

Additionally, we evolved through adaptation to a very specific environment that we have long since abandoned, through a process of selection of random mutations. This makes our relationship to "synthetics" a lot more nuanced than you make it sound. Naturally occurring products can have very harmful effects, while synthetic products can be very beneficial. And both things can also be anywhere in between. There is no rational reason to shun everything simply because it is man-made, and no reason to think that such behavior is a sure way of preventing harm. In fact, it obviously isn't, since the first thing one does once afflicted by a natural illness is to treat it with a human synthesized chemical.

I also want you to keep in mind that my original point was inspired by Dalamon, who made a much more general statement about not trusting companies and their chemicals. There might be a case to be made in this specific instance about known costs versus reward, and I think you made it well. But in general, I think the mentality is erroneous.

Good night.

 

[franklin]

WTF was this???

 

[Gameface]

It is well known smoking harms your body in many significant ways. Yet many "indulge" in smoking daily. Some get cancer, some live long lives and never do.

None of us are pure.

If my life is shortened in an effort to feed the world that's something I can live and/or die with.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

It is well known smoking harms your body in many significant ways. Yet many "indulge" in smoking daily. Some get cancer, some live long lives and never do.

None of us are pure.

If my life is shortened in an effort to feed the world that's something I can live and/or die with.

There is also a heavy tax on cigarettes to make up for the negative externality that cigarettes cause.

I'm pretty sure California just approved a big increase on said cigarette tax.

 

[Gameface]

There is also a heavy tax on cigarettes to make up for the negative externality that cigarettes cause.

Dope

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Dope

Meaning it's not really a good example.

We have internalized the cost of cigarettes much better than we have the cost of environmental polluters caused by industry.

 

[Gameface]

Meaning it's not really a good example.

We have internalized the cost of cigarettes much better than we have the cost of environmental polluters caused by industry.

Mega dope.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Mega dope.

"Sucks to Suck II: Sucking in The After-Life: An Autobiography of an After Body Existence of Sucking by Gameface"

Chapter 1:
"Today I met what appeared to be God (or possibly Satan) and he told me I sucked and would continue to suck for eternity. The End"