Re: Natural Plant Toxins vs. Synthetic Pesticide

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

FYI people who think they know something are usually guys, commonly referred

to as wise guys. To me dogma usually refers to the authority of an institution

& recite a lot of rhetoric to establish they have the final word. Personally, I

believe some people are much too sensitive with allowing themselves to feel that

others are somehow condescending or dogmatic. I for one appreciate that there

are some very informative & well educated members here on NN, & I believe none

of them are as dogmatic as you suggest. Maybe it would be better to say some

people are just more sensitive to opinions than others.

OK, here is my opinion based only on what I think I know about the subject.

Toxic foods have always been of interest to me. Raw foodist proclaim how many

more enzymes they get by eating their food mostly raw. But as you mention, what

about raw toxins found in some raw foods? Some need to be rinsed, leeched, or

cooked to draw the natural toxins out while others that contain added pesticides

should not be trusted, in my opinion. But then, you probably knew all that.

Best regards, Jim

Seay <entheogens@...> wrote:

I am reconsidering my ideas about pesticides or at

least certain of them, used for plants and fruits.

Apparently, many plants produce toxins that fail the

Ame's test:

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/synthetic-v-natural-pesticides/

Well, one might conclude, correctly, that our bodies

might at least have developed some resistance to these

older toxins than to the new synthetic ones. Why add

one more thing for our liver to deal with?

But it occurs to me that organic plants have been

developed to be resistant to insects, etc, which means

that they have developed new toxins. Who is to say

that these might not be as bad or worse than some of

the synthetic pesticides? After all, we need only go

and eat some types of mushroom or, for that matter,

acorns if we want to get the experience that " natural "

is not always safe.

I would appreciate if you can provide an intelligent,

non-dogmatic, discussion of this or can point me to

sources of such discussion.

-

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

-WB Yeats

__________________________________________________________

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Well done is better than well said..., Jim Igo

---------------------------------

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

--- Igo <jimi761@...> wrote:

I for one appreciate

> that there are some very informative & well educated

> members here on NN, & I believe none of them are as

> dogmatic as you suggest.

I did not say EVERYONE or anyone specifically was

dogmatic. However, usually on these types of lists

there are some people who are RELIGIOUSLY wed to this

or that diet or perspective. I know that does not

pertain to everyone and usually pertains only to a few

zealots...that goes for any listserv group like this,

regardless of the topic. I wanted to make it clear

that I wanted scientific or, at least, open-minded

discussion of the matter.

Toxic foods have always

> been of interest to me. Raw foodist proclaim how

> many more enzymes they get by eating their food

> mostly raw. But as you mention, what about raw

> toxins found in some raw foods? Some need to be

> rinsed, leeched, or cooked to draw the natural

> toxins out while others that contain added

> pesticides should not be trusted,

Only raw foods? What about cooked foods? I don't

know that cooking, in all instances, rids vegetables

of natural toxins. My understanding is that most all

vegetables have small amounts of toxins (after all

plants don't want to be eaten) but either through

adaptation or through selection done through

agricultural methods we are able to handle these

toxins.

My question is that with organic foods, I believe that

certain measures have been taken so that the plant is

naturally more resistant to, say, insect predators.

The plant must be producing new and/or more natural

toxins in order to acheive this (am I right or wrong).

Now, the answer MIGHT be, Yes, but the toxins they

are producing are not noxious to humans or it might

be, Yes, and such toxins are equally toxic as

pesticides...or the answer might be something else.

I don't know and that is why I am HONESTLY posing this

question. It seems like an essential question.

-

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

-WB Yeats

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

,

> I am reconsidering my ideas about pesticides or at

> least certain of them, used for plants and fruits.

> Apparently, many plants produce toxins that fail the

> Ame's test:

> http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/synthetic-v-natural-pesticides/

The real test is whether animals consuming vegetables get more cancer.

Or, whether that is true of people.

> Well, one might conclude, correctly, that our bodies

> might at least have developed some resistance to these

> older toxins than to the new synthetic ones. Why add

> one more thing for our liver to deal with?

It is not just resistance. Some toxins upregulate cellular defenses

against toxins. Toxins that do this more efficiently are less toxic

than toxins that do it less efficiently. Not only that, but they may

actually be beneficial in small amounts, because they will turn on the

toxin defenses and these can be used against the other toxins. The

effect has to be looked at in vivo, feeding the food to the organism,

to get a real sense of what is going on.

> But it occurs to me that organic plants have been

> developed to be resistant to insects, etc, which means

> that they have developed new toxins. Who is to say

> that these might not be as bad or worse than some of

> the synthetic pesticides? After all, we need only go

> and eat some types of mushroom or, for that matter,

> acorns if we want to get the experience that " natural "

> is not always safe.

I think you have a good point, but toxins are not the plant's only

defense against insects. The brix folks maintain that good soil

decreases plant toxins, which is possible, though I haven't seen any

thorough investigation of the matter.

But take, for example, the case of glucosinolates, which are the

anti-carcinogenic, goitrogenic pesticides in cruciferous vegetables.

Organic vegetables have 15% higher levels. Drought, crowding, and

infection also raise levels. But boron-deficient vegetables have

three times higher levels. This suggests to me that they are a backup

defense, and that good nutrition and sturdy barrier function is the

first defense. So organic is higher because they get attacked by bugs

more. But what about organic on good soil? It's probably lower,

because the plants are *less* vulnerable to bugs.

Take for example the human and mammalian system. When an animal has

deficient tight junction and gap junction formation in the skin, it is

100 times more vulnerable to skin infection. But it will make more

antibodies and natural killer cells and all the rest that will attack

the organisms. Conversely if the animal is rubbed with some kind of

prophylactic antimicrobial, it will probably make less of all these

defenses, and if you remove that, it will make more. But if you

supply the nutrients that are required to make the proper epithelial

barrier in the skin, you don't make the chemical defenses because you

aren't exposed to the microorganisms.

Maybe it is like that in the plant, too.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...>

wrote:

> I think you have a good point, but toxins are not

> the plant's only

> defense against insects. The brix folks maintain

> that good soil

> decreases plant toxins, which is possible, though I

> haven't seen any

> thorough investigation of the matter.

Thanks for your feedback. However, on the above point

I don't follow you. If good soils decreases plant

toxins, then how does the plant protect itself against

predators? By what mechanism would good soil aid the

plant against predators? By predators, I don't just

mean micro-organsims...I mean birds, bugs, etc.

This suggests to me that

> they are a backup

> defense, and that good nutrition and sturdy barrier

> function is the

> first defense.

First defense against what? Maybe against bacteria

but what about birds and insects that want to eat the

plant? Only toxins will dissuade (or cause darwinian

selection to weed out) predators from eating the

plant.

I found the following statement from Ame's study to be

compelling:

<<About 99.9 percent of the chemicals humans ingest

are natural. The amounts of synthetic pesticide

residues in plant food are insignificant compared to

the amount of natural pesticides produced by plants

themselves. Of all dietary pesticides that humans eat,

99.99 percent are natural: they are chemicals produced

by plants to defend themselves against fungi, insects,

and other animal predators.

We have estimated that on average Americans ingest

roughly 5,000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides

and their breakdown products. Americans eat about

1,500 mg of natural pesticides per person per day,

which is about 10,000 times more than the 0.09 mg they

consume of synthetic pesticide residues.>>

Now just because those " natural " pesticides are

natural does not make them any less noxious to humans.

The plant does not want to get eaten and evolution

has bestowed this toxin upon it. I think people have

a " fetish " about " natural " and that this could lead

them erroneously to believe that " natural " pesticides

are less harmful than synthetic ones. However, small

amounts of these " natural " toxins do not harm humans

and I don't see why we should assume that the even

smaller amounts of synthetic pesticide would harm

them.

Actually, we could conjecture the opposite. Natural

pesticides have the potential to mutate and turn into

something really noxious. We can imagine that without

agriculture and selective breeding just this sort of

thing would have happened over time, just as bacteria

and viruses have done.

There may still be some good reasons for eating

organic fruits and vegetables. For one thing,

commercial intensive exploitation of the soil

certainly must rob the soil, hence the plants of

nutrients. And then , too, there is the ecological

problem of destroying the topsoil. That said, I am

going to have to be given more compelling arguments to

believe that synthetic pesticides are necessarily

worse than natural ones.

If we were to discover that mainstream commercial

agro-business was not harming the soil, etc, then I

think we could conclude that organic fruits and

vegetables are a big rip-off. At least, that is the

way I am seeing at the moment.

-

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

-WB Yeats

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

,

> > I think you have a good point, but toxins are not

> > the plant's only

> > defense against insects. The brix folks maintain

> > that good soil

> > decreases plant toxins, which is possible, though I

> > haven't seen any

> > thorough investigation of the matter.

> Thanks for your feedback. However, on the above point

> I don't follow you. If good soils decreases plant

> toxins, then how does the plant protect itself against

> predators? By what mechanism would good soil aid the

> plant against predators? By predators, I don't just

> mean micro-organsims...I mean birds, bugs, etc.

Apparently if boron deficiency causes a vastly greater increase in

glucosinolates than does the absence of exogenous pesticides, the

boron is providing some means for a first line of defense. I don't

know exactly what it is, but that is the most reasonable

interpretation of the data, regardless of whether we know what the

defense is.

> Only toxins will dissuade (or cause darwinian

> selection to weed out) predators from eating the

> plant.

Neither you nor I make the laws about what is, so our declarations

will not force it to be so. Colors will dissuade insects, some

outside of the visible spectrum. There could be chemicals analogous

to pheremones but with repellant properties. Perhaps a healthy

cuticle dissuades some types of insects. Perhaps tissue damage acts

as an attractant and it is not so much that the plant needs to have a

repellant as it needs simply to reduce the attractant. Etc. Whatever

boron does.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...>

wrote:

>

> > Only toxins will dissuade (or cause darwinian

> > selection to weed out) predators from eating the

> > plant.

>

> Neither you nor I make the laws about what is, so

> our declarations

> will not force it to be so. Colors will dissuade

> insects, some

> outside of the visible spectrum. There could be

> chemicals analogous

> to pheremones but with repellant properties.

>

Perhaps I should not have used the word " dissuade " .

What I am talking about is natural selection against

those

predators who feed on plants that are toxic to them.

Natural selection will favor members of the species

who avoid such plants.

Now there may be visual indicators (smell, etc) that

predators use for avoiding such plants...but it is not

usually the indicators, per se, that discouage the

predators, it is the fact that they are indications of

toxins, poisons.

Now there is, in the biological world, such a thing as

mimicry. A plant, animal that is not toxic, poisonous

will imitate (through natural selection) a plant that

is toxic so that predators will not attack it.

-

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

-WB Yeats

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

..

HI,

Thanks for the feedback.

Jim

Well done is better than well said..., Jim Igo

---------------------------------

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

,

> > > Only toxins will dissuade (or cause darwinian

> > > selection to weed out) predators from eating the

> > > plant.

> > Neither you nor I make the laws about what is, so

> > our declarations

> > will not force it to be so. Colors will dissuade

> > insects, some

> > outside of the visible spectrum. There could be

> > chemicals analogous

> > to pheremones but with repellant properties.

> Perhaps I should not have used the word " dissuade " .

I think dissuade is fine but you should have been less emphatic, since

you obviously do not know that the statement is true, since no one

could know something like that.

> What I am talking about is natural selection against

> those

> predators who feed on plants that are toxic to them.

> Natural selection will favor members of the species

> who avoid such plants.

Ok.

> Now there may be visual indicators (smell, etc) that

> predators use for avoiding such plants...but it is not

> usually the indicators, per se, that discouage the

> predators, it is the fact that they are indications of

> toxins, poisons.

Do you have a reference for this?

> Now there is, in the biological world, such a thing as

> mimicry. A plant, animal that is not toxic, poisonous

> will imitate (through natural selection) a plant that

> is toxic so that predators will not attack it.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Thanks for your feedback. However, on the above point

> I don't follow you. If good soils decreases plant

> toxins, then how does the plant protect itself against

> predators? By what mechanism would good soil aid the

> plant against predators? By predators, I don't just

> mean micro-organsims...I mean birds, bugs, etc.

I remember reading in the brix literature somewhere that high brix plants

emit some sort of waves (sound? or other, I don't recall) that repels

insects. I have a sidebar in my article " The Quest for Nutrient-Dense

Food--High-Brix Farming and Gardening "

(http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/nutrient-dense.html) about a guy who's

high brix field of alfalfa bordered a neighbor's pesticide/herbicide treated

field of low birx alfalfa. It's the first sidebar on the above link.

The neighbor's crop was covered in grasshoppers while Rodney's was not. The

neighbor was in his own field and swarmed by grasshoppers. Six times he

stepped into Rodney's high brix field and the grasshoppers left him then

swarmed him again each time he stepped back into his own field.

There is clearly *something* that makes high brix (nutrient-dense) plants

less desirable to predators whether it be these waves or something else.

Probably if you google " waves high brix " or something like that you will get

more info about this.

Suze

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...>

wrote:

> ,

>

> > > > Only toxins will dissuade (or cause darwinian

> > > > selection to weed out) predators from eating

> the

> > > > plant.

>

> > > Neither you nor I make the laws about what is,

> so

> > > our declarations

> > > will not force it to be so. Colors will dissuade

> > > insects, some

> > > outside of the visible spectrum. There could be

> > > chemicals analogous

> > > to pheremones but with repellant properties.

>

> > Perhaps I should not have used the word

> " dissuade " .

>

> I think dissuade is fine but you should have been

> less emphatic, since

> you obviously do not know that the statement is

> true, since no one

> could know something like that.

No, I shouldn't have used something less emphatic. I

should not have used it at all, since it is confusing

and does not express what I intended. What I meant is

that those predators who do not eat such toxins-due to

whatever- will be favored by natural selection to pass

on their genes.

So, to get back on topic, I suspect the whole

anti-pesticide movement might be a bad meme

circulating. Oh, it might have started for a good

reason. I know that there have been some bad

applications of, say, DDT (and some good ones, like

wiping out malaria pretty much..at least in the

developed world). I am still open on the question, as

I am still learning about it. Perhaps some list

member will come forward with an argument to

contradict mine.

I also need to revisit the question of soil nutrient

level organic vs inorganic. Not that I have any

reason at the moment to doubt that organic vegetables

are cultivated in a more ecologically sound way or

that they are not more nutritious, but if I can

overlook the already cited stuff on pesticides, then I

must have been asleep when I first encountered the

argument for organic.

-

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

-WB Yeats

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

--- Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

>

> There is clearly *something* that makes high brix

> (nutrient-dense) plants

> less desirable to predators whether it be these

> waves or something else.

> Probably if you google " waves high brix " or

> something like that you will get

> more info about this.

Well, if there is indeed something electro-magnetic

(or whatever) in those fields that

" scares off " the insects, then, yes, this would be a

good argument .

Of course, this is highly anecdotal, but not

necessarily wrong. It would definitely be worth

investigating further.

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

-WB Yeats

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

> Of course, this is highly anecdotal, but not

> necessarily wrong. It would definitely be worth

> investigating further.

Tom,

Yes, my example was meant to simply be an anecdote that appears to

illustrate the idea of a possible sound wave or electro-magnetic wave or

whatever that repels pests. But the science of this wave thing is discussed

somewhere in the brix literature - I just don't recall where. I think maybe

in one of Arden Andersen's books.

I'm sure Rex on the brixtalk list could elaborate on it.

Suze

[Guest guest]

--- Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

But the science of this

> wave thing is discussed

> somewhere in the brix literature - I just don't

> recall where. I think maybe

> in one of Arden Andersen's books.

>

> I'm sure Rex on the brixtalk list could elaborate on

> it.

Who is Rex (is that his name or is he really the King

of something

and where is the brixtalk list?

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

-WB Yeats

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

> Who is Rex (is that his name or is he really the King

> of something

> and where is the brixtalk list?

That is his name and he is the King of Brix to many :-) He was the subject

of the article I posted. The brixtalk list is here:

http://tech./group/BrixTalk/

Suze

[Guest guest]

,

> No, I shouldn't have used something less emphatic. I

> should not have used it at all, since it is confusing

> and does not express what I intended. What I meant is

> that those predators who do not eat such toxins-due to

> whatever- will be favored by natural selection to pass

> on their genes.

Ok. So insects that avoid the plants will be favored -- what does

that have to do with whether the plants are toxic to us?

> So, to get back on topic, I suspect the whole

> anti-pesticide movement might be a bad meme

> circulating. Oh, it might have started for a good

> reason. I know that there have been some bad

> applications of, say, DDT (and some good ones, like

> wiping out malaria pretty much..at least in the

> developed world). I am still open on the question, as

> I am still learning about it. Perhaps some list

> member will come forward with an argument to

> contradict mine.

What exactly is your argument? You state that insects who do not eat

plant toxins are favored by natural selection. I don't see what is

worth contradicting about this.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...>

wrote:

> Ok. So insects that avoid the plants will be

> favored -- what does

> that have to do with whether the plants are toxic to

> us?

the issue revolved around the following

exchange that we already had earlier in the thread:

wrote:

" take, for example, the case of glucosinolates, which

are the

anti-carcinogenic, goitrogenic pesticides in

cruciferous vegetables.

Organic vegetables have 15% higher levels. Drought,

crowding, and

infection also raise levels. But boron-deficient

vegetables have

three times higher levels. This suggests to me that

they are a backup

defense, and that good nutrition and sturdy barrier

function is the

first defense. "

responded: " First defense against what? Maybe

against bacteria

but what about birds and insects that want to eat the

plant? Only toxins will dissuade (or cause darwinian

selection to weed out) predators from eating the

plant. "

It has to do with us, because we are enquiring as to

whether organic plants have more or less toxins than

" conventional " plants. I <<THINK>> you were making

the point that there was some other mechanism by which

organically grown plants fended off predators and I

was just saying that something in the soil might deter

bacteria and disease but even if that is so, it

wouldn't deter animals, or for that matter, airborn

bugs from eating the plants. Only the plant toxins

will do that by aiding in the process of natural

selection against those predators who would eat the

plant.

What does that have to do with us? Well, we got off

on a tangent of my main point, which is that plants

create natural toxins that, as far as I can see, are

no less noxious than many synthetic pesticides.

>

> What exactly is your argument? You state that

> insects who do not eat

> plant toxins are favored by natural selection. I

> don't see what is

> worth contradicting about this.

No, what might be worth contradicting is my argument

that natural toxins are equally noxious to the

synthetic pesticides being used.

If they are EQUALLY noxious (synthetic and natural

pesticides) then WHY the hell am I paying $3 a pound

for apples at Whole Foods? If synthetic pesticides

are somehow worse then I want to know.

-

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

--- Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

> That is his name and he is the King of Brix to many

> :-) He was the subject

> of the article I posted. The brixtalk list is here:

> http://tech./group/BrixTalk/

Thanks, I will check it out.

Here's why it is important to this conversation.

Often if a plant has another mechanism for defense, it

will not produce as much toxin (since creating toxins

is biologically " expensive " ). So, for example, a

walnut which has a hard shell protecting it is less

likely to be toxic as opposed to a fruit or seed more

exposed.

-

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

-WB Yeats

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

,

> It has to do with us, because we are enquiring as to

> whether organic plants have more or less toxins than

> " conventional " plants. I <<THINK>> you were making

> the point that there was some other mechanism by which

> organically grown plants fended off predators

Not necessarily. I was saying there is an independent contribution of

soil health that has the opposite effect of organic (which is to raise

the toxins) and that it is probably a larger contributor, so organic

on good soil might be lower in toxins and anti-nutrients, as the brix

folks *claim.*

> and I

> was just saying that something in the soil might deter

> bacteria and disease but even if that is so, it

> wouldn't deter animals, or for that matter, airborn

> bugs from eating the plants. Only the plant toxins

> will do that by aiding in the process of natural

> selection against those predators who would eat the

> plant.

Ah, I didn't realize that you were claiming natural selection is

required for the effect. I agree it is a major component of the

effect of the toxins, but I think you should be a little less dogmatic

about whether this is the only defense against insects. There are

components that filter certain wavelenths of life that act as

attractants and repellants to insects; there might be attractant

signals in damaged tissue; there may be physical properties of healthy

leaves that make them more difficult for certain insects to eat.

In some plants the toxins increase in response to pests rather than in

anticipation of them. Maybe this synthesis is impaired in damaged

tissue and thus the advantage to the insect. Alternatively, while the

benefit to the insect of eating damaged tissue is not obvious, the

benefit to the ecosystem is pretty clear. And the criteria for

whether something occurs or not should be the observation of whether

it occurs, not speculation based on preconceptions of how ecosystems

evolve.

> What does that have to do with us? Well, we got off

> on a tangent of my main point, which is that plants

> create natural toxins that, as far as I can see, are

> no less noxious than many synthetic pesticides.

The much more salient point I offered in this respect is that the Ames

Test is not a test of carcinogenicity or toxicity or noxiousness. It

is not a legitimate means of determining what to eat, or what is more

toxic to eat. At best it is a very imperfect screening method for

deciding what to do further testing on.

> No, what might be worth contradicting is my argument

> that natural toxins are equally noxious to the

> synthetic pesticides being used.

> If they are EQUALLY noxious (synthetic and natural

> pesticides) then WHY the hell am I paying $3 a pound

> for apples at Whole Foods? If synthetic pesticides

> are somehow worse then I want to know.

The evidence you want to look for, then, is feeding studies using

organic and conventional foods. and were having a

discussion a while back in which such a study was posted showing that

animals fed organic had higher reproductive capacity. I imagine the

research is pretty scant in this area.

Your " if " is pretty important. Thus far in this thread, no legitimate

evidence has been presented that plant toxins are equally noxious.

Might they be? Sure. But what about the massive amount of research

making claims for the anti-carcinogenic and antioxidant activities of

these substances, or the epidemiological research showing that

vegetables (which are high in toxins in general) are good for you?

Clearly, it is ambiguous whether these substances are good for you or

bad for you, and at what amounts. If we want to make an effort to

make an educated guess, we at least need an assay done in an organism

that has a liver.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...>

wrote:

> Not necessarily. I was saying there is an

> independent contribution of

> soil health that has the opposite effect of organic

> (which is to raise

> the toxins) and that it is probably a larger

> contributor, so organic

> on good soil might be lower in toxins and

> anti-nutrients, as the brix

> folks *claim.*

Ok.

>

> Ah, I didn't realize that you were claiming natural

> selection is

> required for the effect. I agree it is a major

> component of the

> effect of the toxins, but I think you should be a

> little less dogmatic

> about whether this is the only defense against

> insects.

Oh, I am not saying it is the only defense. It isn't.

I am sorry that I appear dogmatic. I certainly have

no right to be, given that my background is not very

strong in this area.

>

> Your " if " is pretty important. Thus far in this

> thread, no legitimate

> evidence has been presented that plant toxins are

> equally noxious.

> Might they be?

No, there hasn't been. I also haven't seen any

evidence suggesting that they are less noxious. Mind

you, the thread started out as a question. My

background is in Computer Science, not botany or

agriculture. I am presenting what I know, but I know

that my knowledge is very very incomplete.

Sure. But what about the massive

> amount of research

> making claims for the anti-carcinogenic and

> antioxidant activities of

> these substances, or the epidemiological research

> showing that

> vegetables (which are high in toxins in general) are

> good for you?

> Clearly, it is ambiguous whether these substances

> are good for you or

> bad for you, and at what amounts. If we want to

> make an effort to

> make an educated guess, we at least need an assay

> done in an organism

> that has a liver.

I don't know about those studies and, of course, I am

not arguing against eating vegetables becuase they

have toxins (natural or synthetic). And, if a

vegetables good points outweigh a few bad points, it's

worth eating. I mean, the liver takes care of a lot

of any potential problems.

That's life...that really is life. Somebody who

thinks they are going to find a food that is 100

percent good is mistaken.

So, my question remains....why should I buy expensive

organic as opposed to cheaper non-organic?

-

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

-WB Yeats

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

Less likely, but still toxic, right? And what about the toxins that the roots

absorb from chemicals spread on the grass around the tree or spraying the tree

for whatever bugs affect walnut trees?

I posed this question to someone else recently about certain fruits and veggies

being " not worth it " for organic because they have more outer protection from

the chemicals. I asserted that the chemicals used to grow large {pick your

thicker skinned fruit or veggie} would be absorbed through the root system and

work through the plant.

This is the reason I don't want to use chemicals on my carpet, floors, or grass.

When me or my animals walk where those chemicals once were,we will absorb them

through our feet and they will work through our system.

I just pose this for conversation. No attacks please.

Kathy

>a

> walnut which has a hard shell protecting it is less

> likely to be toxic as opposed to a fruit or seed more

> exposed.

>

> -

[Guest guest]

,

> Oh, I am not saying it is the only defense. It isn't.

> I am sorry that I appear dogmatic. I certainly have

> no right to be, given that my background is not very

> strong in this area.

Ok, neither is mine.

> No, there hasn't been. I also haven't seen any

> evidence suggesting that they are less noxious. Mind

> you, the thread started out as a question.

Yes, good point.

[snip]

> I don't know about those studies and, of course, I am

> not arguing against eating vegetables becuase they

> have toxins (natural or synthetic). And, if a

> vegetables good points outweigh a few bad points, it's

> worth eating. I mean, the liver takes care of a lot

> of any potential problems.

> That's life...that really is life. Somebody who

> thinks they are going to find a food that is 100

> percent good is mistaken.

And as I said before, the toxins might actually be good for you. If

they stimulate detoxification more than synthetic toxins do, for

example. (This could also mean some synthetic toxins might be good

for you in small amounts too, but it's also true that some synthetic

toxins are very bad at stimulating detoxification, which is why

they're so toxic).

> So, my question remains....why should I buy expensive

> organic as opposed to cheaper non-organic?

Some people would say go by brix instead of organic status. I don't

have a refractometer. I tend to go by appearance and taste. It just

so happens that the produce I buy at Whole Foods tends to look

healthier, last longer and taste better than the produce I buy

elsewhere, and it's usually organic.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In , Seay <entheogens@...>

wrote:

>snip

> No, what might be worth contradicting is my argument

> that natural toxins are equally noxious to the

> synthetic pesticides being used.

>

> If they are EQUALLY noxious (synthetic and natural

> pesticides) then WHY the hell am I paying $3 a pound

> for apples at Whole Foods? If synthetic pesticides

> are somehow worse then I want to know.

>

> -

Hi, I am coming in rather late to this thread. I tend to agree with

Ray Peat on this one, that we should generally avoid the natural

toxins as well as the synthetic, thus the diet would be made up of

mainly animal & fruit. Here is Peat's article:

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/vegetables.shtml

Jewel

[Guest guest]

Jewel,

> Hi, I am coming in rather late to this thread. I tend to agree with

> Ray Peat on this one, that we should generally avoid the natural

> toxins as well as the synthetic, thus the diet would be made up of

> mainly animal & fruit. Here is Peat's article:

That is pretty close to what Price seemed to observe. The most common

plant foods were starches, and after that fruits. He spoke very

little of leafy vegetables, except seaweed in certain groups.

Chris