Hamlet in brief; deals with trust issues, mortality, accusations, and lots and lots of death by poison. In its entirety, the Shakespearian tragedy is not nearly a side by side comparison to my argument, but let’s really take a look at the debate over organics and see how some of this fits.
Trust issues
In general, trust issues are greatly based on a fear of the unknown. Many people do not believe "organic" is better than "conventional" because they don’t know enough about the growing process, and they trust their brand name products. The reality is, there are many “brand name” companies involved in the organic industry; Kraft, Heinz; Nestle, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kellogg, Hershey and General Mills; to name a few. http://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/themes/Cornucopia/downloads/OrganicT30J09.pdf
These companies not only have found it worthwhile to invest in the organic trade, but also know it is wise to trust in a growing method that is tried and true. Before WWII and the onset of industrial agriculture, produce was grown without synthetic chemicals; in fact, many of the chemicals first used on agricultural crops were, shall we say, leftovers, from nerve gases used during the war. Chemicals, like DDT, before the 1970 ban, were eventually revealed as a major carcinogenic risk to humans, not to mention the rampant destruction it caused to the environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide
Mortality
Could the decision to buy organic products really be a matter of life and death? Well--in some cases it might, especially if you have a poor or compromised immune system, are a candidate for high risk pregnancy, or are pre-disposed to cancer, endocrine disorders, heart and kidney failure, or liver disease! By not overloading your system with pesticides, your body will utilize the required energy to heal instead of using it in a desperate attempt to tackle the onslaught of chemicals you will innocently ingest eating so called “fresh foods”.
Your vital organs are filters for your body and they absorb toxins like those on the food you eat or products you may put on your skin, including beauty products and clothing! The pesticides used on and in these products are touted as non-toxic by the EPA-- but does this mean they are healthy to inhale, ingest or absorb? I hardly think so!
Take Glyphosate for example; a class III herbicide widely used in agriculture to control weeds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate A study conducted by a well known chemical company indicates that the weeds sprayed with Glyphosate are becoming resistant to this treatment.
One problem the manufactures of Glyphosate are experiencing is; “you can’t fool mother nature” and true to form, she has found a way to prevail once again! This simply means that the applications of this herbicide are not working very well in order to kill weeds. A pesticide/herbicide combination called, "2, 4-D" is now offered as an alternative choice. The product is said to have low toxicity to humans, http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mp6B8000.pdf , yet the International Agency for Research on Cancer has found "2, 4-D" to be a carcinogen.
The EPA listing reads; “In longer-term studies, at dose levels above the threshold of saturation for renal clearance, "2, 4-D" is toxic to the eye, thyroid, kidney, adrenals, and ovaries/testes.” This product has been approved by the EPA for agricultural use and can be applied residentially to lawns. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/24d_fs.htm . How about sending your kids out to play on that?
Does anyone know what “Restricted Entry Interval” REI means? This is the time frame before a farmer or farm worker should re-enter the field without protective clothing or gear, after a pesticide has been applied. The time frame on this is usually 12 hours to 3 days, but in some cases, it can extend over several weeks! So- if this residue is still that dangerous after such a long period of time, why are we allowed to ingest these products?
“The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), or H.R.1627, was passed unanimously by Congress in 1996”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Quality_Protection_Act.
Under this act, the FQPA established a new safety standard (reasonable certainty of no harm) that must be applied to all food commodities; in addition to the new standard the EPA now has to consider the specific risks pesticides might have for infants and children.” “The FQPA required the re-testing of all existing pesticide tolerance levels within 10 years.” Reasonable certainty?!! Ten years?!!
In 2001, scientists from Seattle and Atlanta
Organophosphate exposure has been linked to higher incidence of ADHD in children. One of the major crops this neurotoxin pesticide is used on is apples; I guess this surely negates the “apple a day, keeps the doctor away” recommendation!
Pet products, such as flea killers, have also been highly contaminated with a “family of chemicals" called organophosphates. Even though many of these have been outlawed, there are still dangerous chemicals on your pet store shelves. You may wash your produce often, but how often do your wash your pet? -- and-- unless you never touch your pet, these products are most likely absorbed by you through your skin or nasal passages! So remember, there are many organic pet products available to protect your fuzzy loved one. http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/npets.asp
Accusations
Which growing method is doing the most for the greater good? Is it better to focus on synthetic and/or GMO growing methods with pesticides and growth stimulators, in an effort to feed the masses? We are told that organic agriculture cannot feed a nation, yet as reported by Brian Halweil, Senior Researcher at the World Watch Institute: “of the reviewing 154 growing seasons' worth of data on various crops grown on rain-fed and irrigated land in the United States, University of California-Davis agricultural scientist Bill Liebhardt found that organic corn yields were 94 percent of conventional yields, organic wheat yields were 97 percent, and organic soybean yields were 94 percent. Organic tomatoes showed no yield difference.” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060 .
Seriously, as a nation with an obesity problem, do we really need greater yields from the commodity crops that are bases for foods contributing to this disease? The Center for Disease Control reports: “In 2009, no state met the "Healthy People 2010" obesity target of 15%, and the self-reported overall prevalence of obesity among U.S. adults had increased 1.1 percentage points from 2007”, these statistics are frightening. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm59e0803a1.htm?s_cid=mm59e0803a1_e%0D%0A
Deaths by poison
January 3, 2011, Jerry Brown's first day of office, the people of California submitted more than 52,000 signatures to the "Brown Administration", opposing the use of methyl iodide in their state.” “U.S. EPA staff confirmed in August 2010 that they would re-open their national decision on methyl iodide for public comment.
“On December 1, 2010, in the 11th hour of the ‘Schwarzenegger Administration’, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) approved the use of methyl iodide as a soil fumigant pesticide in agriculture. Yes, this was approved, despite scientist recommendations, and more than 53,000 comments from Californians sent directly to the Agency.” http://www.panna.org/issues/related-umbrella-campaign/cancer-free-strawberries.
Not all pesticide exposure ends in death, but certainly near death-- and horrific experiences from some chemicals, like Methyl iodide; a pesticide classified as highly toxic (see Material Safety Data Sheet link) http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927669. The science is in and it is unequivocal. However, they still have not made this happen.” Please keep in mind, this pesticide is often used on strawberries and California strawberries are shipped nationwide; for this reason alone, you should always buy organic strawberries.
http://www.panna.org/issues/related-umbrella-campaign/cancer-free-strawberries
Many stories of direct exposure come from farm workers which, of course, can be passed off as a "work hazard"-- but, how about the woman who was exposed by just standing in her driveway as a crop duster flew overhead. Within 72 hours all her vital organs were failing! She survived to tell her story; will you? https://www.pesticidewatch.org/uploads/2e/48/2e48d177ff7a83806226173103a7eecf/CPRMeIProfiles.pdf
My own experience with pesticide exposure occurred at age 10 while enjoying a Halloween school carnival. As I recall, I emerged from the fun house, wheezing, and within minutes I had passed out, only to awaken in the emergency room with a technician beating on my chest in an attempt to revive me. I was told it was an allergic reaction to “something”. This attack was in late October, during active crop dusting applications over the cotton fields adjacent to my elementary school. I spent the remainder of my years, while living in that area, on heavy medication for severe asthma attacks. After leaving the area, my condition returned to normal.
A 2001 University of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill study found, “living close to areas where agricultural pesticides are applied may boost the risk of fetal death due to birth defects.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010214075018.htm
So what if you don’t live in an agricultural area? Who cares, right? After all, you wash your produce; isn’t that enough? Well then, what about a nice fuzzy peach? Do you think any amount of washing will get pesticides off that skin? How about apples? Apples have their pesticides sealed in with a nice coat of wax! -- and grapes--they absorb most of their pesticides through the water! Oh, -- and let's not forget flowers; how many of us have gotten a bouquet and the first thing we do is stick our noses in and take a great big inhalation of…what?
Now, have a look at the EPA (United States) standard for rating pesticides: The United States Environmental Protection Agency uses four Toxicity Classes. Classes I to III are required to carry a Signal Word on the label. Pesticides are regulated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Toxicity Class I
- most toxic;
- requires Signal Word: "Danger-Poison", with skull and crossbones symbol, possibly followed by:
- "Fatal if swallowed", "Poisonous if inhaled", "Extremely hazardous by skin contact--rapidly absorbed through skin", or "Corrosive--causes eye damage and severe skin burns"
- Class I materials are estimated to be fatal to an adult human at a dose of less than 5 grams (less than a teaspoon).
Toxicity Class II
- moderately toxic
- Signal Word: "Warning", possibly followed by:
- "Harmful or fatal if swallowed", "Harmful or fatal if absorbed through the skin", "Harmful or fatal if inhaled", or "Causes skin and eye irritation"
- Class II materials are estimated to be fatal to an adult human at a dose of 5 to 30 grams.
Toxicity Class III
- slightly toxic
- Signal Word: Caution, possibly followed by:
- "Harmful if swallowed", "May be harmful if absorbed through the skin", "May be harmful if inhaled", or "May irritate eyes, nose, throat, and skin"
- Class III materials are estimated to be fatal to an adult human at some dose in excess of 30 grams.
Toxicity Class IV
- practically nontoxic
- no Signal Word required since 2002
“Practically non-toxic”?! Is that the best we get?! Imagine this; you have a cancerous tumor and you go through surgery to have it removed. Later, in the Recovery Room, the surgeon informs you they had to fit as many patients as they could possibly fit in to operate on this day. As a result, your surgery was a "little rushed", but.... they got practically all the cancer removed and maybe it won’t grow back! In this same vein, we, the consumers, are offered “practically non-toxic” products, using the excuse that these pesticides are necessary in order to get more produce out of a crop. This reasoning is ludicrous and antiquated; you/we, deserve better!
I have to be honest with you, even with my negative reaction to pesticides and my knowledge of organic agriculture; I haven’t always purchased organic products, excusing myself for of lack of time, money and the imagination to try new recipes using organic ingredients made available to me from our area. However, after completing the research required writing this article, I can tell you that I will be more attentive to my purchases from here on in!
Having read through pages and pages of toxicity reports from EPA approved chemicals; I must emphatically say that I am terrified in regards to the health of our people and our soil. On February 26, 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt said “the nation that destroys its soil; destroys itself”.
Today we literally have the power to change things at our fingertips. Write or call your state representatives and Commissioner of Agriculture. Let them know where you stand on this issue, and remind them, as you are their constituent, they work for you! It is all very well and good to use science and innovation in the name of progress, but we also need to take from the past and give to the present and future, always keeping in mind that all farming was “organic” before industrial methods of growing were introduced just after WWII.
It should also be feasible to have a round table discussion and an official department represented by all the leaders of agriculture; Organic, Sustainable, Conventional, Biodynamic, and any others that can develop best management practices for farming. This would ensure the health and safety of our food and other bodily products; really, it could very well be this easy people, we just need to speak up!
I urge you to sign up for newsletters at http://www.panna.org/ , the Organic Consumers Association http://www.organicconsumers.org/ , The Rodale Institute http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/ , as well as the Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/. At the EWG website, you will find the “Dirty Dozen” list and please stick to this list as if your life depended on it; after all, it just might!!-- http://www.foodnews.org/walletguide.php.
I also encourage you to read the book; “Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture” by Andrew Kimbrell. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1559639415/sr=1-1/qid=1156796709/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9726292-4532103?i
Armed with information and greater numbers demanding what’s right, we can use our voices and our vote; we can make a difference!
So as you can see, Conventional agriculture put up against Organic agriculture is very Shakespearean in that it is painstakingly tragic, and hard to understand. Making a decision, in the end, becomes, at some point, like playing a game of Russian roulette (anyone remember the POW scene from “The Deer Hunter”?). Do you spend the extra money and effort purchasing organic products? I mean--what if you are one of the lucky ones that are never affected by the adverse reactions related to pesticide exposure?
Well, I know people who will research for hours on end, agonizing over which car to buy with just the right safety rating, whether it comes with airbags; the best tires; antilock brakes and state- of- the- art anti-theft systems! A considerable amount of time as well as money is spent on this information, without knowing, or even bothering to inquire, if they will ever need these devices in the lifespan of this particular vehicle, while it is in their possession! The same applies to health insurance and home/rental insurance. All of this effort is exerted with the thought of bodily protection in mind; "you know…just in case".
So, organics: to buy or not to buy; is it really a question?
