In article
,
Billy wrote:

In the name of fairness, I wrote to Dr. Joe.
Joe Schwarcz:
http://oss.mcgill.ca/contact.php

26 May, 2009

Professor Schwarcz,
there is a debate, in the UseNet group rec.gardens.edible, over the use
of herbicides and pesticides.
A poster there, using the name Sherwin Dubren, claims to have
purportedly received an email from you, which he posted on 25 May, 2009.

From: sherwin dubren
Newsgroups: rec.gardens.edible
Subject: Dr. Schwarcz replies
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 01:55:14 -0500


In response to all the chatter about Dr. Scharcz being on the payroll
of the chemical companies, as well as his office, I sent him the
comments from this forum and he replied with the following:


Thanks for forwarding me that nonsense. Nobody funds me....except
McGill University . I do know where the CBI stuff comes from....a while
ago CBI funded some summer scholarships for McGill students, a couple of
whom ended up working in our office. That had nothing to do with
anything....certainly not with my book. These "organic" people are
paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view" they think
that some conspiracy is afoot. They generally have a very poor
scientific background and have no understanding of chemistry. They
could use a little oil for their mental machinery. Organic oil if they
so wish.
regards

Dr. Joe Schwarcz



Steve can take pot shots at Dr. Schwarcz to try and malign his knowledge
and connections, but he is only trying to divert people from
understanding what this well educated man has to say. He is well
recognized in the scientific community and well accepted by the public
who buy his books and watch his regular TV show up in Canada. Too bad
certain people have closed minds. Some may call that dogmatism but I
tend to think it is fanaticism.

Sherwin

-------

Some of us would like to know if this accurately reflects your attitude
about "organic" farming (in the contemporary sense of the word).

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Bill Rose

----

I urge others of you to write to Dr. Joe as well.

So the good doctor responds.
----

Subject: Organic
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:58:24 -0400
Thread-Topic: Organic
Thread-Index: AcneJaUDVTLa2QAtRnuWe/ZSs5A58AAHkGQw
From: "Joe Schwarcz, Dr."
To: "Bill Rose"
X-McGill-WhereFrom: Internal
X-Sonic-SB-IP-RBLs: IP RBLs .

The email is indeed from me. I have attached a few pieces I have
written on organic agriculture which obviously express my views.

#1 Organic

There were piles of all sorts of tomatoes in the produce aisle of the
supermarket. But the ones that caught my attention sat neatly wrapped
in plastic in groups of four. They weren't any better looking than the
others, but their price was a stunning five dollars and eighty cents!
What sort of tomatoes were these to command a king's ransom? Well, they
were ³organic.² Why did they warrant the investment? Because as the
label declared, ³when you purchase organic produce you are taking part
in the healing of our land, the purifying of rivers, lakes and streams,
and the protection of all forms of life from exposure to chemicals used
in conventional farming.² Surely only a callous chemist with a
disregard for nature would purchase any other sort of tomato.
There is no doubt that the organic produce market is growing. Some buy
organic because they believe such foods are healthier, others do so to
help save the environment from those nasty agro-chemicals. These
beliefs are certainly worth investigating. But what exactly does
³organic² actually mean? Essentially, organic food must be produced
without the use of synthetic pesticides, artificial fertilizers,
antibiotics or growth promoting hormones. Genetically modified
organisms are not allowed and irradiation cannot be used to control
bacteria. Sounds just like farming roughly a hundred years ago. Back
then feeding the masses required some 70% of the population to be
involved in farming in some way. Yields were low, crop losses to
insects, fungi and weeds were high. That's why farmers welcomed the
introduction of scientifically designed fertilizers and pesticides.
That's why today 2% of the population can feed the other 98%.
Such advances have not come without a cost. Pesticides and nitrates
from fertilizer enter ground water with potential environmental and
health consequences. So people harken back to the ³good old days,² when
food was untainted and people lived in blissful health. Of course,
those ³good old days² only exist in people's romanticized imagination.
Food-borne diseases were rampant and fresh fruits and vegetables in
winter were virtually unheard of. Nutrient deficiency diseases cut a
wide swath through the population. Of course, not even the greatest
advocates of organic agriculture suggest that we can realistically turn
back the clock and provide food for the world's population using only
organic methods. They claim a niche market that caters to people who
are conscious of their environment and health.
So, do consumers who buy ³organic² avoid pesticides? Hardly. Organic
farmers are allowed to use a number of pesticides as long as they come
from a natural source. Pyrethrum, an extract of chrysanthemum flowers,
has long been used to control insects. The Environmental Protection
Agency in the U.S. classifies it as a likely human carcinogen. There
you go then, a ³carcinogen² used on organic produce! Does it matter?
Of course not. Just because huge doses of a chemical, be it natural or
synthetic, cause cancer in test animals, does not mean that trace
amounts in humans do the same. Furthermore, pyrethrum biodegrades
quickly and residues are trivial. But that is the case for most modern
synthetic pesticides as well! And how about rotenone? This compound
was discovered in the 1800s in the extracts of the root of the derris
plant. Primitive tribes had learned that the ground root spread over
water would paralyze fish which then floated to the surface. Rotenone
is highly toxic to humans and causes Parkinson's disease in rats. It
can be used by organic farmers to control aphids, thrips, and other
insects on fruit. Residues probably pose little risk to humans, but
synthetic pesticides with the same sort of toxicological profile have
been vilified.
Organic farmers are also free to spray their crops with spores of the
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterium which release an insecticidal
protein. Yet, organic agriculture opposes the use of crops that are
genetically modified to produce the same protein. Isn't it curious that
exposing the crop to the whole genome of the bacterium is perceived to
be safe, whereas the production of one specific protein is looked at
warily? The truth is that the protein is innocuous to humans, whether
it comes from spores sprayed on an organic crop or from genetically
modified crops. True, organic produce will have lower levels of
pesticide residues but the significance of this is highly debatable.
A far bigger concern than pesticide residues is bacterial contamination,
especially by potentially lethal E. coli 0157:H7. The source is manure
used as a fertilizer. Composted manure reduces the risk, but anytime
manure is used, as of course is common for organic produce, there is
concern. That's why produce should be thoroughly washed, whether
conventional or organic. Insect damage to crops not protected by
pesticides often leads to an invasion by fungi. Some fungi, like
fusarium, produce compounds which are highly toxic. In 2004 two
varieties of organic corn meal had to be withdrawn in Britain because of
unacceptable levels of fumonisin, this natural toxin.
Are organic foods more nutritious? Maybe, marginally. When they are
not protected by pesticides, crops produce their own chemical weapons.
Some of these, various flavonoids, are antioxidants which may contribute
to human health. Organic pears and peaches are richer in these
compounds and organic tomatoes have more vitamin C and lycopene. But
again, this has little practical relevance. When subjects consumed
organic tomato puree every day for three weeks, their plasma levels of
lycopene and vitamin C were no different from that seen in subjects
consuming conventional puree. Where organic agriculture comes to the
fore is in its impact on the environment. Soil quality is better, fewer
pollutants are produced and less energy is consumed. But we simply are
not going to feed 7 billion people organically.
Finally, do organic tomatoes taste better? I can't tell you. Instead
of shelling out $5.80 for four tomatoes, I bought a bunch of regular
tomatoes, some apples and some oranges for the same total. And I think
I got a lot more flavonoids and vitamins for my money.
------

#2 Organic.2

Is it a fruit or a vegetable? That used to be the major tomato dilemma.
Not any more. Now people query a tomato's lycopene content, they wonder
about the relative nutritional merits of cooked versus raw tomatoes and
speculate whether or not to trade in conventional for ³organic²
varieties. Let's start with the lycopene issue. Tomatoes, as well as
pink grapefruit and watermelon owe their color to this compound but
lycopene has another property as well. It is an antioxidant, meaning
that it can neutralize those heinous free radicals that cavort around
our body, bent on wreaking havoc with our biochemistry. Indeed, a
number of studies have suggested that a diet containing lycopene may
offer protection against cardiovascular disease and macular
degeneration, as well as against cancer of the prostate, the cervix and
gastrointestinal tract. Although the evidence is not conclusive, there
is certainly no harm in increasing our lycopene intake. Wouldn't it
then be fruitful to know which tomatoes have the highest levels of
lycopene, and while we're at it, the highest levels of other
antioxidants such as beta carotene, vitamin C and the polyphenols?
Actually, this is not a simple question to answer. The nutritional
composition of produce is affected by many factors, including sunlight
exposure, moisture, type and amount of fertilizer used, extent of attack
by pests, and of course, plant genetics. Red tomatoes, for example, can
have three times as much lycopene as pink tomatoes, and you can forget
about lycopene in fried green tomatoes. Red cherry tomatoes, weight per
weight, have more lycopene than large red tomatoes, and also have more
phenolics. Then there are variations depending on the type of tomato,
whether it is field-grown or greenhouse-grown, and its degree of
ripeness when picked. And what about organic tomatoes, grown without
the use of synthetic pesticides or fertilizers? Are they more
nutritious?
When French researchers compared the differences in lycopene, vitamin C
and polyphenol content of organic versus conventional tomatoes, they
found that the organic tomatoes had somewhat higher levels of vitamin C
and polyphenols, which was not surprising given that the tomatoes
probably produce these to fend of pests. If they get no help from
commercial pesticides, they will produce more of the natural variety.
Lycopene levels did not differ between organic and conventional
tomatoes. Furthermore, the researchers investigated blood levels of
these substances in people fed 96 grams daily of either organic or
conventional tomato puree for three weeks and found no difference in
lycopene, vitamin C or polyphenol levels.
A fascinating study carried out in Taiwan matched ten conventional and
ten organic tomato farms and found that there was no difference in the
lycopene, beta carotene, vitamin C or phenolics content of the produce.
Some farming practices, both in conventional and organic systems, did
affect the quality of the tomatoes. Over watering, for example, reduced
lycopene content, weeds reduced carotenoid concentrations and phosphorus
and iron content of the soil was found to influence vitamin C and
phenolic concentrations. On nutritional grounds then, whether you eat
conventional or organic tomatoes doesn't matter. Taste, however, is
another story.
The difference in flavor between biting into one of those giant
supermarket tomatoes or into the cardboard box it came in, is minimal.
That's because over the years we've used various techniques to grow
produce faster and to be bigger. Synthetic fertilizers, with their high
levels of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus, encourage rapid growth,
but this results in more water being taken up from the soil. The
produce is bigger, but it is bigger because it has a higher water
content. Organic crops, fertilized with manure, take up nitrogen more
slowly and have a lower water content. In a sense they are more
concentrated in flavourful compounds. . And of course they are less
concentrated in pesticide residues, which is another reason that people
gravitate towards ³organic.² But is the difference in residues between
conventional and organic produce of practical significance?
One way of coming to some sort of conclusion on this issue is to compare
the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of pesticides as determined by the
World Health Organization with the average intake of these substances in
the daily diet. The ADI is determined by first feeding pesticides to
animals to identify the most sensitive species. Then the highest level
of pesticide given on a daily basis throughout this animal's life that
does not cause any noticeable toxicological effect is determined. This
amount is then divided by a safety factor of 100 to arrive at the ADI
for humans. In other words, a typical human exposure at 1% of the ADI
represents an exposure that is one-ten thousandth of a dose that causes
no toxicity in animals.
In order to determine what the actual human exposure is, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration used to carry out a Total Diet Study which
involved purchasing 285 different foods found typically in the diet, and
analyzing these for pesticide residues. When 38 of the most commonly
used pesticides were examined, 34 were found to be present at less than
1% of the ADI, while the other four were present at less than 5% of the
ADI. Because the levels were so low, the FDA has stopped carrying out
such a survey on an annual basis. While the residue from pesticides
would seem to pose very little risk, eating organic foods does eliminate
exposure. When children eating conventional foods are switched to
organic foods, pesticides disappear from the urine after five days. Of
course the only reason they were detected in the first place is because
our analytical detection capabilities have become so phenomenal that
they can find the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Oh yes. About the cooked versus raw tomatoes. Lycopene is more readily
absorbed from the cooked variety, making tomato sauce and believe it or
not, ketchup, good sources. Interestingly, here ³organic² makes a
difference, with one study showing organic ketchups having twice as much
lycopene as conventional varieties. But remember that you can always
double your lycopene intake by eating two tomatoes instead of one.
Finally, if you are still wondering, the tomato is indeed a fruit, not a
vegetable.
----

#3 Organic 3

The battle has been raging back and forth ever since synthetic
pesticides and fertilizers were introduced into agriculture. Is organic
produce safer and more nutritious than the conventional variety?
Curiously, organic really used to be conventional. Up to the twentieth
century all farming was ³organic.² If you wanted to fertilize your
fields, you used manure or decomposing plant material. If you wanted to
control insects, you used toxic, but of course ³natural,² compounds of
arsenic, mercury or lead. Nicotine sulfate extracted from tobacco
leaves killed insects effectively, and by the 19th century, pyrethrum
from chrysanthemums was also available for insect control. Dusting
crops with elemental sulfur was an age-old practice for reducing
infestation by pests and fungi. And then in the twentieth century
synthetic pesticides and fertilizers entered the picture. Why?
Necessity, as has often been said, is the mother of invention. Crop
losses were too great to feed the growing population, soils were being
depleted of nutrients, and the toxic effects of arsenic, mercury and
lead-based insecticides had become apparent.
Chemists rose to the challenge and developed fertilizers to replenish
the soil and array of pesticides to ward off insects and fungi. Yields
increased, and the hungry were fed. At least in the western world.
With produce abundant, and tummies full, we now had the luxury of
turning towards other food-related concerns. Like the risks of the
new-fangled agrochemicals. After all, insecticides were designed to
kill insects, so they obviously had toxic potential. Their effect on
non-target species, such as interference with the egg-laying abilities
of birds, began to raise questions about their effect on human health.
Consumers began to harken back to the good old days when produce had
been ³chemical-free.² They wanted uncontaminated, pesticide-free food
grown without synthetic fertilizers. They wanted to go ³organic.²
Some farmers complied. If that's what people wanted, they would go back
to growing food the old-fashioned way. No pesticides, no synthetic
fertilizers and none of those novel boogeymen, genetically modified
crops. Sure, yields would be reduced, and the produce might look less
appealing, but as long as consumers were willing to pay a premium,
farmers would meet their needs. Indeed, consumers fearful of pesticide
exposure were willing to pay more for organic produce, which they
surmised would also be more nutritious. After all, doesn't Mother
Nature know best?
A number of field trials were organized to put Mother Nature to a test
by comparing the nutrient composition of organically and conventionally
grown crops and produce. These mostly focused on antioxidant content,
based on the general belief that it is these substances that account for
the benefits of a diet high in fruits and vegetables. This is actually
not as well established as most people think. While there is
overwhelming evidence that a diet high in fruits and vegetables is
healthy, there is no hard evidence that this is due specifically to
antioxidant content. In theory, the assumption is reasonable, because
antioxidants, at least in the laboratory, can neutralize free radicals
which have been linked with a variety of health problems. But fruits
and vegetables contain hundreds of different compounds and it isn't
clear which ones are responsible for the health benefits. Studies with
isolated antioxidants have proven to be disappointing.
Some, but certainly not all, studies have shown that organically grown
foods are higher in antioxidants. This isn't surprising because crops
left to fend for themselves without outside chemical help will produce a
variety of natural pesticides, some of which just happen to have
antioxidant properties. And how much of a difference in antioxidant
content is there between organically and conventionally-grown foods?
According to a four year long study carried out at the University of
Newcastle, organic food is some 40% richer in antioxidants. The
researchers even suggest this means we can eat fewer fruits and
vegetables in our quest for good health, as long as they are organic.
This is not a totally compelling argument. Foods are extremely complex
chemically and measuring the amounts of a few antioxidants may not be a
proper reflection of nutritional value. For that we need feeding
studies. Do rodents thrive on organic diets? Nobody knows. And are
humans who eat organically healthier? Nobody knows.
There are some other questions that come to mind as well. What about
disease causing organisms that may be present in manure used as organic
fertilizer? Or fungal metabolites, which are more likely to be found in
organic foods because they are not protected by insecticides?
Fumonisins, for example, produced by Fusarium moulds, are carcinogenic
and have also been linked with birth defects in humans. Moulds take
root where insects have damaged the crop. Such damage is less likely if
the crops are protected through genetic modification. Insertion of a
bacterial gene that codes for the production of a toxin which has no
effect on humans can protec these crops from insects. But of course
genetic modification is not allowed in organic agriculture! Too bad,
because if we look to increase nutrient content, this is the way to go.
A line of genetically modified tomatoes, with almost eighty times more
antioxidants than the conventional variety, has already been developed
at the University of Exeter. Now, that is a far greater nutritional
difference than between organic and conventional produce. Imagine the
benefits we could have if organic farmers embraced genetic modification!
What then is the bottom line here? If cost is not an issue, organic may
indeed be an appropriate choice. There is no doubt that it is
environmentally a more sound practice. But for most people, cost
matters, and if they commit to going organic all the way, expense and
lack of availability may lead to consuming fewer fruits and vegetables.
Emphasis really should be on consuming at least seven servings of fruits
and vegetables a day, not on whether these are organic or not. There is
one more point to be made. Pretty soon, there will be 10 billion people
coming to dinner. And there is no way that they are going to be fed
organically.
----

There are three more documents dealing with pesticide, which I shall
pass along shortly.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En2TzBE0lp4

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050688.html