Many people are afraid of trace amounts of poison, especially in their food and water; failing to understand that the amount of poison is what really determines a food’s safety, not that the toxin exists.
Image via Wikipedia
We routinely tolerate toxic chemicals in the food we eat every day. Even organic fruits and vegetables contain extremely toxic chemicals. For every gram of artificial pesticide residue we consume, we eat over 22 pounds of natural toxins found the vegetables themselves.
As an example, I’ve prepared a sampling of a carrot’s ingredients; other than carbohydrates, fat, water, fiber, and protein, a carrot contains 371 measurable compounds, many of them extremely toxic to humans.
Listed below the ingredients list I have compiled a listing of the chemical properties of these chemicals. You’ll see that the chemicals in carrots are used as sunscreens, pesticides, tranquilizers, contraceptives, decongestants, refrigerants, preservatives, soap, sedatives, and rat poison. Many are carcinogenic and toxic to the heart and central nervous system. We are able to ingest carrots and receive a net health benefit because the poisons are found in small amounts. As you can see, carrots are anything but “chemical free.”
A carrot contains:
ALANINE, ACETONE, ACETALDEHYDE, ALPHA LINOLENIC ACID, ALUMINUM, ARSENIC, ASARONE, ALPHA TERPINENE, BORNYL ACETATE, BORON, BROMINE, BUTYRIC ACID, CADMIUM, CAMPHOR, CHOLESTEROL, CHOLINE, CHROMIUM, COBALT, CYSTINE, CYSTEINE, ETHANOL, FORMIC ACID, FUMARIC ACID, GLUTAMIC ACID, HYDROGEN CYANIDE, ISOBUTYRIC ACID, ISOPRENE, LAURIC ACID, LEAD, LECITHIN, LITHIUM, LYSINE, MALIC ACID, MERCURY, METHYLAMINE, MYRISTICIN, NICKEL, OXALIC ACID, PHENYLALANINE, PHOSPHORUS, QUERCETIN, SILICON, STEARIC ACID, SULFUR, TARTARIC ACID, TIN, TITANIUM, TRYPTOPHAN, XYLITOL.
If an organic carrot were labeled with this (partial) list of its ingredients, how many of us would purchase one? It contains many chemicals that we might reject including Phytic Acid ( 52,700 ppm; a preservative with E number E391), Xanthotoxin (300 ppb; a drug with the trade name Oxsoralen), Oxalic Acid (56 ppm, a pesticide used to treat bee hives, fatal in humans at 71mg/kg), Methylamine (3,970 ppm, an industrial solvent and DEA controlled substance), and so on.
Carcinogenic, Cardiotoxic, CNS-Stimulant, CNS-Toxic, Contraceptive, Convulsant, Corrosive, Cytotoxic, Decongestant, Deliriant, Disinfectant, Diuretic, Expectorant, Fatal, Flatugenic, FPTase-Inhibitor, Genotoxic, Hallucinogenic, Hepatocarcinogenic, Hepatotoxic, Herbicide, Hormone, Hypnotic, Hypothalmic-Depressant, Immunosuppressant, Insect-Repellent, Insecticide, Irritant, Laxative, Lubricant, Motor-Depressant, Mosquitocide, Myorelaxant, Narcotic, Neuroexcitant, Neuroinhibitor, Neurotoxic, Ozone-Scavenger, Parasiticide, Perfume, Pesticide, Phototoxic, Pituitary Stimulant, Preservative, Refrigerant, Renotoxic Respiration Depressant, Rodent Poison, Sedative, Soap, Spermicide, Stimulant, Sunscreen, Sweetener, Surfactant, Termiticide, Testosteronigenic, Toxic, Tranquilizer, Tumorigenic, Tumor Promoter, Urine-Acidifier, Uterorelaxant, Vasodilator, Vasomotor Stimulant.
SOURCE:
http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/plants.html
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=346c9d88-6db1-4564-941f-b80859231d54)
My thoughts exactly, Francis. Human physiology evolved to digest and metabolize the various flora (and some fauna) on earth, not industrial pesticides, herbicides, or genetically modified organisms. Any naturally occurring plant can be denatured and broken down into compounds that, once isolated, are toxic to human physiology, yet when these same plants are ingested and broken down by our bodies they are completely safe (non-toxic).
This is a strange apology for pesticide residues in food. The list of so-called "toxic" substances found in carrots includes minerals found in soils, some essential for life: amino acids that form the structures of proteins, also essential for life; and many other natural compounds found in nearly all life forms.
What this simplistic analysis ignores is that the organic coupounds found in carrots and other living organisms are parts of complex structures that have evolved to serve the function of living organisms over three and a half billion years of natural selection. Synthetic pesticides, on the other hand, were not part of that evolutionary process and their effects on living organisms are unpredictable, and are generally designed to be disruptive.
Vegetables do indeed produce natural pesticides, like flavoniods, to protect themselves from pests. And, recent research has found that plants grown organically, without the use of synthetic pesticides, produce more flavonoids than plants protected with synthetic pesticides.
The interesting rest of that story is that those same flavonoids in organic foods, when consumed by humans, bring health benefits by serving as antioxidants that have anti-bacterial, anti-viral, anti-tumor, anti-inflammatory, antiallergenic, and vasodilatory effects. For example, they have been found to protect against heart disease and cancer.
It is dangerous to assume that synthetically produced compounds will behave like plant-produced compounds that have evolved through the long-term and rigorous testing of nature's ecology. We may think we are more clever than nature, but the history of pesticide use shows a long trail of synthetic pesticides that have been — over time — proven to be more toxic than originally thought. Recently, roundup and atrazine — herbicides that have been used long an widely — are being found to be more toxic than originally thought.
Slightly on topic . . .
I've wondered about the lifecycle of pesticides and GMOs. For instance given these two examples:
1 – Take cow manure that has been treated with a pesticide, put in a compost area until it breaks down, then work it into a vegetable garden.
2 – Take some GMO corn, put it in a compost area until it breaks down, then work it into a vegetable garden.
In those cases, are you still growing organic vegetables? Are chemicals and DNA (of the GMO corn) transferred into say the carrot you're growing?
My understanding, with corn, was that it was cultivated over thousands of years from Teosinte. Teosinte is edible, but only produces several edible kernels, so it was bred over time to be more productive. I've never heard that it was originally a toxic food.
I read about Teosinte last year because some Mexican corn farmers are letting the plant grow amidst their corn crops. I can't recall exactly why.
I'm a big fan too. I think he can win. It's time.
Carrots were apparently first bred for medicinal use of the seeds, later bred for larger roots which became orange instead of purple, white, or yellow.
http://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/history.html
1. Would depend on the pesticide. My understanding is that land must be "pesticide free" for three years before it can be used for organic farming.
2. No. This is similar to wondering if when you consume an apple its genes are somehow transfered into your genetic structure.
I understand why it wouldn't qualify as pesticide free. My question is more for my own personal backyard garden. Specifically I am interested in the importance of getting manure that is pesticide free vs. manure that may have pesticides.
Or what about grass fed cows vs corn (GMO) fed cows? I understand (and appreciate) the importance in the differences in the milk and beef produced by those two cows, but what about the quality of manure? Does any of the "bad" properties of the GMO corn, effect the nutrients provided by the manure for a vegetable garden?
http://sacredday.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/the-evo...
http://sacredday.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/the-evo...
That's pretty amazing. It makes me see farmers as some of the first scientists.
I just returned from being out of town for the weekend, and see you have been having some interesting discussion. I would like to add a few points.
The National Organic Standards do not prohibit the use of manure from conventional agriculture in organic production, even if the animals have been fed GMOs or crops that have been treated with pesticides. Of course, composting the manure will help break down pesticide residues and GMO DNA, but not all pesticides are completely broken down by composting. As a matter of fact, some pesticides will inhibit the composting process.
The GMO DNA in corn will not transfer to your DNA if you eat the corn, as Lyicd indicated, but it has been found that bacteria can pass GMO DNA among bacteria species, and humans certainly have lots of bacteria in our digestive tracts. I don't think all the implications of that are yet known.
Where can I find information regarding the "growing body of evidence which suggests that using just the active ingredient of a plant as medicine often results in negative side effects compared to using the whole medicinal plant?"
I grew up hearing this from parents and teachers, but have not yet seen evidence to support it.
Lyric you should run as VP of Agriculture alongside Francis. Good discussion guys, I am enjoying it. I 'm gonna take a break though and go eat a carrot in my fridge… I hope I survive!
My aim is not to vilify the ingredients of a carrot, but to point out that our bodies did indeed evolve to process small amounts of poison — we may even live longer because of poisons (rats fed small doses of poison live longer than zero poison fed rats).
Vegetables contain "natural pesticides," that we have learned to purify and use as "artificial pesticides." Carrots *could* be processed into artificial pesticides(Oxalic Acid for example) — we would be purifying the natural pesticides used by the carrot to defend itself and re-using them to protect our other garden plants.
From personal experience in gardening, I know that many of the artificial pesticides are derived from natural sources, or synthetically produced copies of the chemicals found in plants.
For example, one can use an organic pesticide which is purified from the marigold flower, or one can purchase the non-organic version (the same chemical) produced in a lab. It is a broad spectrum pesticide, non persistent, and breaks down upon exposure to light, and is used to treat scabies as a topical cream. It is considered to be amongst the safest insecticides for use around food, natural or artifical — it shouldn't matter, they are exactly the same chemical.
On the other hand organic pesticides can be much more dangerous. For example, copper sulfate is approved for organic farming but builds up in soil, and is corrosive to the skin and eyes. It is readily absorbed through the skin and can produce a burning pain, along with the same severe symptoms of poisoning from ingestion. One gram is fatal.
In my opinion the world of "natural" or "artificial" is not a deciding factor. We should judge each chemical based not on its origin, but upon its real world toxicity and effectiveness.
Almost every fruit and vegetable we eat has been modified by human farming to be less toxic for human digestion. Corn used to be a small, tough, almost impossible food. Carrots were very small with higher concentrations of volatile compounds.
Many foods have evolved to specifically stop us from eating them. For example, jalapenos and all "hot" vegetables and spices contain a chemical (capsaicin) specifically designed to stop mammals from eating them. Capsaicin is not effective for birds — they don't feel the burn of the pepper and happily ingest the pepper and its seeds, which are not broken down in their digestive tract. The bird later poops out the seeds and another plant has a good head start, complete with fertilizer.
Mammals, however, are capable of digesting jalapeno seeds — the so plant has evolved to increase its capsaicin concentration until mammals stay away from them and only birds continue eating.
lyric wrote, "Almost every fruit and vegetable we eat has been modified by human farming to be less toxic for human digestion. Corn used to be a small, tough, almost impossible food. Carrots were very small with higher concentrations of volatile compounds."
I find this surprising information. Could you direct me to some reading I can do on this? I've always assumed that human farming took crops that were already non-toxic and bred them for taste, visual attractiveness, yield, pest-resistance, weather-resistance, etc. But this is the first I've heard that common foods — corn, carrots — were initially toxic.
Or did I misunderstand your comment?
Francis, I'm glad you are running for Iowa's Secretary of Agriculture. I don't know if you will capture enough votes to win, but the educational value to Iowans will be tremendous — like the educational influence you are having here. I especially appreciate your ability to convey the information and arguments in simple understandable terms.
I agree, Atrazine and Roundup may well be dangerous. However, I'm not a fan of a generalized fear of chemicals or poisons, or anything "artificial." Most of the plants we ingest today both contain poisons and are altered by humans in the recent past.
The "rigorous testing of nature's ecology" doesn't seem like a very accurate way to describe the domesticated plants we ingest today. The carrot we currently use was domesticated (changed by man from a small almost inedible root primarily grown for its seeds) in the 1700's in Holland, for example.
Nature is constantly changing, why do we assume that everything we see has been the way it is forever, or evolved in harmony with man? Did people in the 18th century fear the strange huge orange carrots….?
Plants produce more natural pesticides (including flavonoids) to protect themselves from added pest threats in the absence of applied pesticides (natural or artificial).
I agree that it is dangerous to assume that synthetic compounds will behave like plant compounds. However, thinking the same chemical is okay if produced from distilling flowers, and dangerous if similarly produced from a longer chain of chemicals ( also originally derived from natural sources) seems a little silly.
Everything we have is originally derived from nature! Even the universally regarded as unsafe chemicals cocaine and heroin (and the "semi-synthetic" painkillers used in hospitals) are derived from plant sources.
If we are to fear any product "not found in nature," we should fear almost every plant we consume along with the synthetic chemicals. Why not judge each substance on its behavior and toxicity instead of it's natural or artificial origins?
The breeding of plants for domestication over many years in the past was done within the "rules" of natural crossing of plant genes. Genetic engineering, however, opens the potential to create plants not possible through natural breeding by inserting genes from organisms that could not possibly cross with plants. For example, GMO corn has been created — and is widely used — in which toxin-producing DNA from a bacterium is inserted into corn plants so the corn plants make a pesticide within the plant tissue to kill insects that might attack the corn plant. This could not happen in nature.
While it is true that many modern medicines were created by synthetically reproducing the "active ingredient" of medicinal plants, there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that using just the active ingredient of a plant as medicine often results in negative side effects compared to using the whole medicinal plant. Apparently, there are often buffering agents and other cofactors present in medicinal plants that play a role in the delivery of the active ingredient, or otherwise play a supporting role in the holistic effect of the medicinal plant.
GMO foods are another issue, but claiming that we evolved to sustain ourselves by consuming the "natural" foods of the modern era is pure fiction. Most of the plants and animals we eat today have been modified by man (via "artificial natural selection") to be easier to grow and easier to eat.
The plants and animals we eat today could not exist in nature, as it were, either. Farm animals are too fat and tame to survive (which makes them easy to raise and have tastier, fat-marbled meat), and the plants we eat have too little natural defenses(natural pesticides), not enough reproductive capacity, and have oversized roots and fruits, specifically modified for our tastes but disastrous for a wild plant trying to reproduce without being eaten animals or pests.
I did a quick google on "medicinal plants, active ingredients, cofactors" and came up with 66,000 hits. The first one was a scientific paper with references:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m880m14489130...
Wikipedia had an explanation as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacognosy
I am sure you can find lots of references. I believe Ayurveda also supports that principle.
You are right that most domesticated plants and animals have been bred to enhance certain traits — most commonly yield. I am not familiar with a lot of plants or animals that have been bred to be less toxic. One problem that is cropping us with all the emphasis on crop yields is that modern crops are losing some of their nutritional value in place of the higher yield, which is sometimes just more starch.
According to Darwin, species change over time (evolve) through natural selection (via survival of the fittest). With traditional breeding techniques, humans select which traits survive, but it is still selecting within the natural gene pool. With genetic engineering, life forms can be created that are not possible with natural breeding, and which may have novel effects when eaten and metabolized.
Neither of the links provided seems to offer supporting evidence for using whole plants instead of the isolated active ingredients; how did you arrive at this conclusion?
The first link is to a review article in the journal Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology (2000). The article reads "An advantage of medicinal plants is that they provide patients with a comple of natural compounds, have smoother action and are better tolerated than synthetic drugs, and produce fewer allergic reations." It gives several references. unfortunately, only the first page of the review article is displayed, so you cannot source the references.