A British study on the nutritional value of organic foods was released yesterday.  (source National Post: “No nutritional value added in organics: study.” Thur. July 31, 2009 http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1842708)

The study concluded that “Organically produced foods have no more nutritional value than conventionally grown products and consumers who pay a premium for organic foods are doing so based on perception, not fact” [my emphasis]

Are they daft?

Do they think that people who purchase organic food are daft?

I purchase organic products because I care about my health and the health of my planet.

I purchase organic products because of what it doesn’t contain . I personally do not want to eat residue from pesticides such as:

- Iprodione*. A known carcinogen used in the conventional production of almonds, Iprodione is also a potential ground water contaminant and suspected endocrine disruptor.

- o-Phenylphenol*. A known carcinogen used in the conventional productions of apples, o-Phenylphenol is also a developmental or reproductive toxin and a suspected endocrine disruptor.

- Chlorothalonil*, a known carcinogen used in the conventional production of tomatoes, that also has the potential to be a ground water contaminant.

By purchasing organic products I support biodiversity, environmental stewardship, clean water, clean air, safe work environments for farm workers, preservation of heirloom plants, soil nutrition, small-scale family farms, ethical treatment of animals, sustainable agriculture and the list goes on.

Purchasing organic isn’t about better nutrition.

Purchasing organic is a non-selfish way of saying “I care.” 

*Information sourced from PAN Pesticide Database http://www.pesticideinfo.org and What’s on my food? http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/index.jsp. Retrieved July 31, 2009.

Have you been swatting at mosquitoes the past few days?

Well before you get annoyed and grab for a spray bottle of “who-knows-what-but-they-say-its-safe” concoction, take a moment to remember dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, more commonly known as DDT.

Its pretty unlikely that mosquito you’re swatting at is infected with malaria … that’s a good thing. And some people will argue that the use of nasty chemicals is justified; that the good they do in the world outweighs the bad. 

But I say that if we are smart enough to create something that useful, but harmful, aren’t we also smart enough to figure out a less harmful solution? 

But I digress … we were talking about DDT.

DDT was discovered to be a very effective insecticide that, among other things, stopped the spread of malaria by killing malaria infected mosquitoes. This discovery came about some 65 years after DDT was first created in a lab. In fact the fellow who discovered its efficacy as an insecticide received a Nobel Prize for his efforts.

One of those great ideas that seemed to work wonders for the world, DDT stopped the spread of malaria. Unfortunately it was also heavily relied on as an agricultural pesticide until some astute Americans were finally able to make their environmental concerns heard via Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring. This 1962 bestseller is thought by some to be what launched the environmental movement, although it still took a full 10 years for the use of DDT to be banned in the US (1972), and another 12 years after that for a ban to take effect in the United Kingdom (1984).

What was concerning these pioneer environmentalists?

Well it seems that DDT gets into the food chain, becoming more and more concentrated, eventually causing harm to those at the top of the food chain. Damage occurs to the liver and central nervous system, the risk of cancer increases and reproduction problems occur, notably eagle eggs, and the eggs of other birds of prey, don’t hatch because their shells are too thin.

Use of DDT today is mostly limited to controlling outbreaks of disease infected insects, and with the decline in its use, an expected drop in human and environmental contamination has also occurred.

Phew! Glad we figured that one out before it did really serious damage!

Oh … just one more thing … you see DDT likes to attach itself to the sediment in water, and when that water is frozen, the degradation of the chemicals into harmless bits is delayed … until the water is thawed out.

Enter global warming and the melting of ice caps. While it seems the worst of DDT contamination is behind us, this ‘good idea gone bad’ may come back and bite us in the butt for a few more years, with penguins taking the brunt of it. (source New Scientist: Melting glaciers release toxic chemical cocktail. May 7, 2008. Accessed June 25, 2009)

Actually … about that biting us in the butt thing … there is at least one other little DDT legacy that still needs to be ‘taken care of’.

For some crazy reason, a Californian DDT manufacturer used the Los Angeles sewer system to get rid of 1,700 tons of DDT between 1947 and 1971, resulting in 17 square miles of the Pacific Ocean being described as “the worst DDT hotspot in the entire U.S.” (source The Buffalo News: EPS plan targets vast DDT deposit off Calif. Coast. June 23, 2009. Accessed June 25, 2009.)

Oops!

This 24 year indiscretion is still contaminating fish that live in the area (near Palos Verdes, Southern California), prompting warnings since the early 1980s to not eat those fish. Almost 40 years later, there is finally a ($36 million) plan to lessen the problem by covering the contaminated area on the bottom of the ocean with 18 inches of sand and silt.

Ya … I’m not even going to comment on that proposed solution … I’m sure they know what they are doing …

So why should we remember the DDT story? Because there are potentially thousands of DDT-like disasters occurring today.

Some we know about, most we don’t.

For our grandchildren’s sake, its time to embrace the less harmful solutions.

A new website called “What’s On My Food” www.whatsonmyfood.org has been launched. Its purpose is “… to loosen the pesticide industry’s control over global agriculture …” by making information available to the public through the power of computing.

Created by PAN (Pesticide Action Network) North America, What’s On My Food cross-references toxicology data from the US Environmental Protection Agency with the US Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program.

Brilliant!

One of the things that makes this website particularly exciting is it lists the pesticide residues found on both conventionally grown and organically grown food.

Featured are some 49 different foods in various preparation methods. For each of the 89 food entries you can discover if they contain residues which are:

1. Known or Probable Carcinogens
2. Suspected Hormone Disruptors
3. Neurotoxins
4. Developmental or Reproductive Toxicants

Yes … you read that right. Carcinogens, hormone disruptors, neurotoxins and toxins that disrupt human reproduction are all legally used to grow our food. 

That pisses me off!

Some of these chemicals are also finding their way into food grown using organic methods … we live in a closed system … everything affects everything else …

Let’s take a look at what this website says about one of my favourite foods, the Sweet Potato.

- 13 pesticide residues were found on the non-organic Sweet Potatoes; 4 of these same residues were present in the organic Sweet Potatoes grown in the USA; none of the residues were found in the imported organic Sweet Potatoes (there is no mention of what country this product was imported from.)

- The 13 pesticides included: 1 known carcinogen; 2 probable carcinogens; 1 possible carcinogen; 7 suspected hormone disruptors; 6 neurotoxins and 2 reproductive toxins.

Now I’m really pissed!

Eat organic. Grow organically. Hug organic farmers.

Let’s get real about what we eat.