By now, I think most people understand that organic food is supposed to be healthier for you. But I think there are still some people who feel that the health benefits are a just a bunch of marketing hype.
Well, this new study suggests that it ain't just hype -- organic produce really does reduce kids' exposure to some potentially risky pesticides. From the Seattle P-I:
The peer-reviewed study found that the urine and saliva of children eating a variety of conventional foods from area groceries contained biological markers of organophosphates, the family of pesticides spawned by the creation of nerve gas agents in World War II.
When the same children ate organic fruits, vegetables and juices, signs of pesticides were not found.
The interesting thing to me was that, after just five days of going all-organic, the organophosphate pesticide markers virtually disappeared from kids' urine. That's fast, and a pretty remarkable result, which led the scientists -- normally a restrained bunch -- to state:
[W]e were able to demonstrate that an organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to organophosphorus pesticides that are commonly used in agricultural production. [emphasis added]
All the more reason to spring for the organic apples.
And in other toxics news: make sure you don't use boiling water to sterilize your polycarbonate bottles! Apparently, heat can make your bottles leach chemical yuckos (actual scientific term!) into your water. Consider yourself warned.
Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash
While scientists fight over BPA studies, Congress could just act
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Comments
View as Threaded
Fawn Pattison Posted 3:09 am
31 Jan 2008
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:49 am
31 Jan 2008
I agree that harmful chemicals should not be used for growing food. This study reinforces my decision to purchase certain organic products.
However, I would like to know whether there is clear evidence that the following chemicals do not harm humans, other animals, or the environment...
copper ammonium carbonate
copper sulphate
copper oxychloride
rotenone, sulphur
nicotine sulfate
veratrine
azadirachtin
salannin
potassium permanganate
pyrethrin
The chemicals are "natural" and used by organic growers. But it is difficult to find information indicating why they are considered safe, whether thye cause long-term ecological damage, or whether residue remains on organic produce. Some affect mammals that could be foraging around organic farms. Another kills fish.
Really... if someone uses rotenone, how do I know they are using it responsibly? How do I know that the apple I just ate did not indirectly kill a bunch of fish? Sure, I'm told the chemicals break down quickly and will not poison me, but shouldn't the products be labeled so I can make an informed decision?
Before someone posts the inevitable reply... I think ALL food should be labeled to indicate where it came from, whether it is a GMO, and exactly what chemicals were sprayed on the plant, whether conventional or permitted under organic farming rules. Consumers should be fully informed.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:52 am
31 Jan 2008
Permalink
Fawn Pattison Posted 4:27 am
31 Jan 2008
Permalink
BobQ Posted 2:09 pm
31 Jan 2008
Permalink
BobQ Posted 2:10 pm
31 Jan 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:04 pm
31 Jan 2008
Plenty of those in the sunny southwest. Huge building rooftops, like malls or factories could host mirror fields for solar thermal.
I think concentrating PV is ready for rooftops at a competitive price with large scale wind. 10 suns produces 39% efficiency according to NREL. Increasing kwh yield by three, and reducing the area of PV cells by 90%.
A different design is needed for small and medium distributed wind. The slower more disturbed winds over marginal sites need a larger surface area vertical axis machine.
Thanks Gar. Great read!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink