all posts post new thread

Nutrition Dirty Dozen / Clean Fifteen

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Not really @Neuro-Bob , at least as far as I’m concerned. I try and buy only organic from local businesses when I can. This for me started based on taste and then supporting local people.
Sadly, I feel that here in the states that government has such a hold on our food sources that it would be hard not to find food that is not contaminated with pesticides and what not. I frequently drive through the Eastern Shore of VA, MD and DE and through the 300 mile trip every time you look there’s another sign stating “This Farm Supported By The USDA” or whatever agency is on the sign.
 
I just feel that this has to be secondary to the nutritional values of the food itself.

Pesticides are heavily tested in their development and I'm frankly not too scared of chemical residues in my food. Interestingly historical used chemicals frequently get a pass - in the UK, it is OK to treat 'organic' apples with copper oxychloride for example.

My one concession to chemical avoidance has been to buy bacon with no nitrites in - nitrites have a long and well proven cancer link (and I like bacon).

In my own experience, when I buy locally grown veg that hasn't been intensively farmed in hydroponics greenhouses then it tastes better. That doesn't mean it hasn't been sprayed a few times in it's life though.
 
Neuro-Bob said:
I vaguely remember these lists being published annually....the 12 most pesticide-laden plant foods and the 15 cleanest.

Dirty Dozen™ Fruits and Vegetables with the Most Pesticides

Clean Fifteen™ Conventional Produce with the Least Pesticides

Are these lists important in and of themselves, more than providing insight that yes there are some chemicals on our farm food?

Does anyone use anything like this to guide their shopping?
Click to expand...


Not specifically, but I do keep an eye on it and will avoid some items if I know they are liable to be heavily treated. This is complicated by the fact I don't know how much any specific pesticide can be washed off and how much is systemic.

And yes, nutritional value plays a role. I buy organic whenever possible (organic pears for my mid morning snack today).

Personally I believe the pesticide load is a contributing environmental factor to a lot of the digestive and autoimmune illnesses that are on the rise in our culture.

I don't believe for one second that any of them are any safer than they need to be to not make you obviously ill after consuming. The FDA is like all other govt regulatory agencies in America these days - completely captured by industry and function primarily to improve profits and thereby facilitate flow of $ "contributions" to the political class.

Buyer beware. This also covered a little in the video:

Nutrition Struggles and Emotional Attachment (Rant) Advice Needed

where the issue of virtually all foods even naturally have good and bad and variety therefore very important. This only becomes more critical when specific pesticides are thrown in the mix - a little from time to time probably not an issue, a consistent dose over years might be a totally different risk level.
 
North Coast Miller said:
The FDA is like all other govt regulatory agencies in America these days - completely captured by industry and function primarily to improve profits and thereby facilitate flow of $ "contributions" to the political class.
Click to expand...
As someone on the more industrial side of this - I disagree entirely. FDA is extremely conservative and focused on safety, probably to the point that some innovation gets delayed or suppressed entirely.

Does it make mistakes? Undoubtedly.

But claiming it is corrupted really is a wild conspiracy theory IMO.
 
krg said:
As someone on the more industrial side of this - I disagree entirely. FDA is extremely conservative and focused on safety, probably to the point that some innovation gets delayed or suppressed entirely.

Does it make mistakes? Undoubtedly.

But claiming it is corrupted really is a wild conspiracy theory IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are rank and file who take their jobs seriously, but it is not a conspiracy theory by any means to suggest all manner of conflict of interest is at work at the top levels of the FDA and most if not all regulatory industries. These are appointed positions after all.

A cursory search returns many hits, mostly having to do with pharma but some pesticide related stuff as well.

Former FDA Commissioner in Massive Conspiracy and Rackeetering Lawsuit - Find Lawyer or Attorney Near Me

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...s-spark-ethical?r3f_986=https://www.bing.com/

A Wide-Open Door for Pesticide Lobbyists at the Agriculture Department — ProPublica

EPA Decides Not To Ban A Pesticide, Despite Its Own Evidence Of Risk
 
I don't know the exact parameters for the U.S. but I assume it is similar to Europe.
Short version: you really do not have to worry about pesticide residues on your food. The amounts are so miniscule that you really cannot eat/drink enough to experience even the slightest effects.
Yet another myth/lie is the claim, that organic produce is healthier and does not rely on pesticides. Organic farming also uses pesticides (in Germany it is a 100-page list manual) but they have to be "natural" as opposed to synthetic (which is an utterly ignorant criteria) and says absolutely nothing about the substance's effect on the environment/human consumption.
In fact, organic farming uses a lot more pesticides than conventional farming dwelling in the ignorant appeal-to-nature-illusion. For example copper sulfate (widely used in organic farming in europe) is a lot more dangerous for human health an the environment than everybody's darling glyphosate (aka roundup). And no, courts do not determine a compound's carcinogenic effect! I am not claiming that every aspect of organic farming is bad, in fact there are some practices that are beneficial when combined with conventional farming in a rational way.
However, the way that organic farming is practised in Europe/Germany is ideologic not rational and does not make sense in most ways (I assune it is similar overseas).
To be fair I should mentione that organic animal products are to be preferred in most cases because the animals are held in better conditions and are fed more appropriatly to their individual needs which results in a healthier fat profile for meat/eggs/diary.
Or you could get your animal products from a (local) small farmer who may not necessarily be organic but nevertheless holds his animals in good conditions just because he does not have a whole town of them.
Also, a lot of supermarkets have gres-fed milk/diary in their shelves. It is a bit more expensive but, in my opinion, it is worth it, considering the healthier fat profile and better conditions for the cows.
 
What criteria do you use for important? They are another piece of information that can be used to guide your selection. I think that the organization behind those lists is trying to provide a more fact based assessment than those who say organic only. This is particularly a consideration with the relatively high prices for organic products. I think that it's more important if you eat a lot of something on those lists than if you only eat a little. If it's only a little bit, your exposure or cost will be little. On the other hand, if you eat a lot the cost of organic might be too much or your exposure to the pesticides might be worth considering.

Those lists aren't specifically about which foods have the most pesticides used on them, but rather how much pesticide makes it to the consumer. Since pesticides are applied differently in different crops, the foods will absorb different amounts. It's unclear how much risk the pesticides carry.

Most pesticides are designed to affect metabolic processes that humans don't have. The question is whether or not other processes are affected. There is some evidence that long term exposure to aerosolized glyphosate might be bad for you. Does that mean eating a little bit is bad? I don't think anyone really knows. It was a little telling that the Monsanto representative said it was safe enough to drink, but backed out when he was actually challenged to drink it.
 
krg said:
I just feel that this has to be secondary to the nutritional values of the food itself.

Pesticides are heavily tested in their development and I'm frankly not too scared of chemical residues in my food. Interestingly historical used chemicals frequently get a pass - in the UK, it is OK to treat 'organic' apples with copper oxychloride for example.

My one concession to chemical avoidance has been to buy bacon with no nitrites in - nitrites have a long and well proven cancer link (and I like bacon).

In my own experience, when I buy locally grown veg that hasn't been intensively farmed in hydroponics greenhouses then it tastes better. That doesn't mean it hasn't been sprayed a few times in it's life though.
Click to expand...

While I agree that avoiding nitrates might be a good idea, please be aware that nitrates can be added using celery juice concentrate. America's Test Kitchen did some testing and found some "uncured" bacon to be higher in nitrates than some that were cured using nitrates. So if you want to avoid nitrates, watch for celery juice.

One of my frustrations with food labeling, at least in the US, is that the producers are always looking for a loophole. People want "uncured" products because cured products got some bad publicity so the producers find a "natural" source, refine it, and get back to the same problem without the bad press. Maybe nitrates should have to appear next to the sodium on the nutrition facts?
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom