Posted by Larry Hoover on November 20, 2002, at 21:06:25
In reply to Levels of Contaminants » Larry Hoover, posted by IsoM on November 20, 2002, at 20:10:33
> Larry, I don't doubt your sincerity but haven't you ever wondered why diff studies done using the proper perimeters can have quite diff results?
>
> I don't have it handy (I can do some hunting if you're in doubt) but a recent study that was done according to strict guidelines in the States (& had no affiliation with any compnies or policies, pro or con) did extensive testing on produce from major supermarkets & those from certified organic fod stores. Less strict testing was also done with the public on taste comparisons between the two.Maybe this is the study?
Food Addit Contam 2002 May;19(5):427-46
Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets.Baker BP, Benbrook CM, Groth E 3rd, Lutz Benbrook K.
Organic Materials Review Institute, PO Box 11558, Eugene, OR 97440, USA.
An analysis of pesticide residue data was performed to describe and quantify differences between organically grown and non-organic fresh fruits and vegetables. Data on residues in foods from three different market categories (conventionally grown, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown/no detectable residues (NDR), and organically grown) were compared using data from three test programmes: The Pesticide Data Program of the US Department of Agriculture; the Marketplace Surveillance Program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation; and private tests by the Consumers Union, an independent testing organization. Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods, and about one-half as many residues as found in IPM/NDR samples. Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown samples. Comparison of specific residues on specific crops found that residue concentrations in organic samples were consistently lower than in the other two categories, across all three data sets. The IPM/NDR category, based on data from two of the test programmes, had residues higher than those in organic samples but lower than those in conventionally grown foods.
> While even the organic produce was found to contain contaminants (they're ubiquitous & we can't escape them), the levels were considered significantly lower. The taste test was highly in favour of the organic produce, people having no idea of whether they were trying organic or not.
I have faith in organic practices, as I've been using them myself for over twenty years.
I don't mean to sound like I'm quibbling, but I wasn't specifically speaking to purposeful application of organo-chlorine pesticides on food crops. PCBs and dioxins and so on are another category of contaminants altogether. I've never heard of anyone applying e.g. PCBs to a food crop for any reason, but they're present nonetheless.
I can't find the study right now, but I read an analysis of total intake of dioxins, and the largest route of exposure was inhalation (via dust), exceeding dioxin uptake from dairy or meat, which were themselves equivalent to intake from vegetables.
I'd like to get back to a point that is no longer prominent in this discourse; I can see no reasonable substitute for fish or fish products, vis a vis the health benefits accruing from their consumption, notwithstanding their contaminant burden. Choosing organic vegetables over conventional ones is a different sort of choice altogether. An organic carrot beats a conventional one.
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:128460
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20021116/msgs/128547.html