02/25/2013 02:48:00 PMTom Karst
Ridiculous! Go OORGANIC!!
"Organic" does not mean free from pesticide residues, and many organic growers have lobbied to prevent USDA from testing organic produce.
Funny how these studies on pesticide consumption are so short. Has there ever been a cumulated study done over the course f a lifetime? Sure it is deemed safe to each once but does it compound the more longer you eat?
Again, who determines the safety level of the pesticides and what have they left out in their testing. Many of the pesticides are new and have not been studied for their affects on the human body. And what are the combined affects of multiple pesticides? More testing should be conducted before officially determining this unconventionally grown food safe.
Federal and state governments determine the safety levels of pesticides. The USDA and EPA carefully and concisely explained the regulatory process in the content of the PDP report. You should read the "Q and A" and "What Consumers Should Know" sections. You may be reassured to learn that the US regulatory systems is among the most stringent in the world and protective of even the most sensitive in our population - infants and children. You can also visit safefruitsandveggies.com and read the Expert Panel report which also includes a section on the US regulatory processes in place to protect public health.
There are literally decades of nutritional studies that clearly show that increased consumption of fruits and veggies improve health and prevent diseases - these studies were conducted using conventionally grown produce. Most recently, a peer reviewed study that appeared in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology found that if only half of Americans increased their consumption of fruits and vegetables by a single serving that 20,000 cancer cases could be prevented each year. Again this study analyzed conventionally grown produce.
Thank you to the Alliance and the anonymous posts above. Realistically we are facing a real paradox here that needs to be straightened out with clear communication and not rhetoric. The consumption of fruits and vegetables stands on the edge of a knife. It can be pushed to fall into increased consumption and health benefits when consumers are given straight talk. The other option is that consumers are scared into shying away from these fruits and vegetables for fear of hazardous side-effects from chemicals which have been tested over and over and over. We perform regular multi-residue screenings and our results tend to be less than 1ppm across the board, sometimes less than half that amount. We are literally talking amounts so small they are nearly indetectable. The benefits of a fruit and veggie-filled diet far outweigh supposed harmful side effects that are usually propogated by the organic industry in an attempt to win over consumers. More often than not this rhetoric simply scares consumers away from healthy eating, organic or not. CHOOSE HEALTHY EATING! CHOOSE FRUITS AND VEGETABLES!!
It's ridiculous to think that people are not getting enough fruits and vegetables because they're worried about pesticides. People aren't getting enough fruits and vegetables because they either A) prefer to eat things like bread, rice, pasta and french fries or B) don't have access to fresh fruits and vegetables. People in cities all over the U.S. live in areas where they don't have access to a grocery store that carries fresh produce. 7/11 isn't exactly a big retailer of lettuce. Food banks struggle to provide fresh produce to families who need it. And even these populations had better access to these nutritious foods, many wouldn't know how to prepare the foods. In the government's zeal to reduce the amount of fat in US diets, the emphasis placed on grains has come at both the consequence of addicting the public to carbs and undermining the need for vegetables and the essential nutrients they provide.
Viljoen (2013) further commented that “… a recent industry sponsored review concluded that ‘‘the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations’’ (Williams et al., 2012). The authors of the latter suggest that where glyphosate toxicity has been observed, it is the result of ‘‘surfactants present in the formulations and not the direct result of glyphosate exposure’’. This argument is irrelevant since it is the formulation that is being applied in practice and is part of the ‘‘herbicide complex’’ of chemicals taken up by the plant.”
Bellé et al. (2012) have responded to Williams et al. (2012) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1093... and point out the following: “The authors consider our results as “not environmentally relevant” because of the concentrations used. The sentence was repeated five times in their article. This is a speculative assertion since (1) we observe effects at concentrations (8 mM affecting 100% of the individual cells at short time exposure) below the usage concentration (20 mM) of the herbicide. Therefore, regarding the considerable amount of glyphosate-based product sprayed worldwide, the concentration of Roundup in every single micro droplet is far above the threshold concentration that would activate the cell cycle checkpoint. (2) The effects we demonstrate were obtained by a short exposure time (minutes) of the cells to glyphosate based products, and nothing excludes that prolonged exposure to lower doses may also have effects. Since glyphosate is commonly found present in drinking water in many countries, low doses with long exposure by ingestion are a fact. The consequences of this permanent long term exposure remain to be further investigated but cannot just be ignored.”
Furthermore, Bellé et al. (2012) also point out that “The authors do not take into account in their interpretation of our results the very poor cell membrane permeability of pure glyphosate (Riechers et al. 1994), although they do state that “commercial formulations include a surfactant system ... allowing penetration of the active ingredient.” Since our results were obtained for short exposure time at neutral pH, we ascribed the absence of cellular effect of pure glyphosate to this poor permeability. To our knowledge, pure glyphosate is not used as an herbicide in agriculture applications and we ignore whether, in such conditions, pure glyphosate is or not an herbicide.” In other words in pure form glyphosate cannot be taken up by the cell and that is why a surfactant is used. So how many safety studies on glyphosate sponsored by industry and evaluated by the EPA have included surfactant? Basically none! In an industry sponsored review of glyphosate, Williams et al. disregard the role of the surfactant in the toxicity of glyphosate. So that is most likely why independent studies (that use the formulation) show toxicity, and industry sponsored studies (that use pure glyphosate) do not.