|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2006 : 16:01:48 [Permalink]
|
Also, according to this review, DDT is unequivocably carcinogenic.
quote:
quoted abstract: Although a great deal of concern has been raised about the hazard potential of endocrine disruptors present in the environment, the in vivo data available from both experimental and epidemiological studies suggest that the majority of those agents do not pose a risk with regard to cancer development. Indeed, naturally occurring examples such as isoflavonoids even appear to exert protective effects. Only for xenobiotics such as 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDT), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and tetrachloro-p-dioxin (TCDD) and special cases of phenols and phthalates is there unequivocal evidence of carcinogenicity and this appears to be directly linked to their toxicity. Thus, careful in vivo assessment is required before drawing any conclusions regarding agents capable of affecting the mammalian endocrine system.
From the article it seems that DDT has been shown to have an effect on colorectal cancer and cancer on the gall bladder, but not on breast cancer. On the other hand, in non-human primates carcinogenicity of low doses has not been evidenced.
I haven't read the other article because I cannot get access to it, but it is dated from 1998 while the above article is dated from 2003. Abstracts of recent articles (2005) still give mixed results, although effects on wild-life (especially birds and fish) seem well documented (and negative).
edited to add: This seems like a good summary of the current state-of-the-art regarding DDT.
hopefully last edit: From the above article, I would agree with the EPA guideline on DDT:
quote:
REGULATORY STATUS: DDT is no longer registered for use in the United States, although it is still used in other (primarily tropical) countries. It is in EPA Toxicity Class II, moderately toxic (72). DDT was banned from use in the United States in 1972, and remains banned barring public health emergency (e.g., outbreak of malaria) (73).
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 02/16/2006 16:26:16 |
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 16:36:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm from california and a strong voice in the organic community, this is bull....
Who hired this toxoligist that will tell you who has a vested interest in steering you from organic.
What exactly is bull? Why would you assume that the toxicologist has a vested interest? Does it matter? Have you got a vested interest in making people eat organic?
quote:
The root of any diseease is often in what you eat if a bug won't eat something would you????
I take it that this should be two sentences? "The root of any diseease is often in what you eat. If a bug won't eat something would you????". I'm not picking on you. It was just difficult reading your sentence(s). Is the root of diseases often in what we eat? At least sometimes this is true (for both food and drink). Bacteria such as Campylobacter, Vibrio (cholerae) and Salmonella can sure make you ill. I would actually prefer to eat stuff that these bugs don't. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 16:57:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sheri berri
Interesting I would wonder who is the publisher of this research, i know of people who died from cancer from DDT 
It's nearby impossible to associate cancer to a certain substance, except by correlation. The above is quite a fishy statement because of this. You probably knew people who got cancer, and who worked with DDT? Recent research suggests that people working with DDT do not have a higher risk of cancer than the normal population.
quote:
I'm from california and a strong voice in the organic community, this is bull....
Who hired this toxoligist that will tell you who has a vested interest in steering you from organic.
But the points given in the OP are not anti-organic specifically.
quote:
The root of any diseease is often in what you eat if a bug won't eat something would you????
Depends on the bug.
quote:
The pros in 'going organic' is that organic food is free from artificial chemicals, pesticides, antibiotics, growth-promoters and fertilizers. It is produced using environmentally friendly methods and is free from genetically modified ingredients (term used to describe foods that have had genetic material from other edibles artificially inserted into them using a process known as 'genetic engineering'. The idea behind this is to transfer the beneficial properties found in some types of plants or animals - such as resistance to attack by diseases, insects or herbicides - to other plants or animals that normally lack these properties). Organic foods reduce dependence on non-renewable resources and places emphasis on animal welfare. Some people think organic food tastes better than non-organic. Organic foods according to some studies show that they have more vitamins and beneficial trace elements than conventionally grown food and so may be more nutritious (8).
Although I am ashamed to admit it, I haven't really studied the growth and health benefits of organic foods in depth (and that being an environmental health scientist  ). I think what you wrote above has merit on several aspects, but I also think that we shouldn't be too scared of using pesticides. The main problem I have with many pesticides is their persistance in the environment. I think we should be cautious in their use for this reason. The health effects of many pesticides are debatable however. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 19:45:25 [Permalink]
|
sheri berry wrote: Interesting I would wonder who is the publisher of this research, i know of people who died from cancer from DDT
Nobody here has presented research that claims that DDT is harmless to humans. However, it is an undisputable fact that the use of DDT as a pesticide has indeed saved more human lives than any other single compound. That is why it is still used in some parts of the world; while DDT has risks, not using it has greater risks.
I'm from california and a strong voice in the organic community, this is bull....
Appeals to authority do not support an argument.
Who hired this toxoligist that will tell you who has a vested interest in steering you from organic.
Nobody hired him. He's a full time professor of Toxicology at the Philadelphia Community College. He spoke for free at a meeting of our local skeptic club. What he spoke on was purely out of his own personal interests and knowledge.
The root of any diseease is often in what you eat if a bug won't eat something would you????
Yes. I like garlic and mint quite a bit. Both of those are classified by the FDA as “pesticides”.
The pros in 'going organic' is that organic food is free from artificial chemicals, pesticides, antibiotics, growth-promoters and fertilizers.
-Certified organic food is grown using pesticides. They are just different pesticides.
-Artificial chemicals are not automatically less dangerous than naturally occurring chemicals. In fact, many artificial chemicals are harmless, and many naturally occurring chemicals are fatally poisonous. As someone else on this forum already pointed out – all substances are poisonous in a high enough dosage. To single out artificial chemicals is just plain silly.
It is produced using environmentally friendly methods and is free from genetically modified ingredients
Explain why genetically modified ingredients are always a bad thing.
Organic foods reduce dependence on non-renewable resources and places emphasis on animal welfare.
I agree with the latter because I have researched a bit about organic meat. Please justify the former since I do not know anything about it, and as a skeptic, I certainly am not going to take your word for it.
Organic foods according to some studies show that they have more vitamins and beneficial trace elements than conventionally grown food and so may be more nutritious (8).
Some studies say it may be more nutritious? Please site the specific studies. I have been a highly health conscious person for years, and no sources that I find credible have emphasized organic foods over non-organic. The only emphasis has been on increased fruits and vegetables, whole grain, and avoiding fat and sugar, especially saturated fat and refined sugar.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 19:55:01 [Permalink]
|
Cecil has an entry about organic foods on "The Straight Dope": http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a970606.html
Basically he says that organic farmers use pesticides, they just tend toward non-synthetic ones. He also says that the good thing about organic farming has to do with a tendency toward environmental conservation, and that concern over synthetic pesticides should be downplayed. Here's an excerpt:
One trend over the past couple of decades has been "no till" farming, which minimizes plowing in order to halt erosion. Trouble is, if you don't plow, you need to rely heavily on herbicides to control weeds. So what do you do--swear off the weed killer, till your soil, and risk having it wash away, or swear off plowing and heavy up on the herbicides? Sure, some people claim they can farm organically and conserve soil at the same time. But it's not easy.
On health, he pretty much repeats the sentiments of the Toxicologist who spoke at my club's meeting: Organically grown produce isn't necessarily healthier for you. For one thing, it isn't guaranteed to be free of synthetic chemicals, a lot of which are ubiquitous in the environment now and are almost impossible to avoid. In any case, some scientists doubt that the small amounts found in conventionally grown crops are all that dangerous. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 20:10:06 [Permalink]
|
An article on whether organic food is better found on WebMD:http://www.webmd.com/content/article/82/97396.htm
Some quotes from this article that pertain to this conversation:
Man-made pesticides aren't the only threats to food safety. There is also the question of natural toxins produced by the plants themselves. In this arena, conventional foods may actually have the advantage.
Because organic production steers clear of synthetic insecticides and herbicides, organic crops usually contend with more pests and weeds than conventional crops. This means the organic plants may produce more natural toxins.
and
Right now, no one can say for sure whether organic food is any more nutritious than conventional food. A few studies have reported that organic produce has higher levels of vitamin C, certain minerals, and antioxidants -- thought to protect the body against aging, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. But the differences are so small that they probably have no impact on overall nutrition.
and
Whether or not organic food really is safer or more nutritious, advocates say there is one more compelling reason to go organic: The health of the environment and society as a whole.
and
But food experts caution that while the big picture is important, you must make the decision that makes the most sense for you. If you can manage the higher price, and you like the idea of fewer pesticides and a more environmentally friendly production system, organic food may be for you. But don't skimp on healthy conventional foods just because you think you need to save your pennies for the few organic items that you can afford.
Basically it says that not enough research has been done into organic farming to show that it is better for human health. Simply eating more fresh produce and washing it before it's consumed is a clear and greater overall health benefit. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/16/2006 20:13:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 20:37:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by sheri berry
Organic foods reduce dependence on non-renewable resources and places emphasis on animal welfare.
Originally posted by marfknox
Please justify the former since I do not know anything about it, and as a skeptic, I certainly am not going to take your word for it.
From memory, I believe this argument is rooted in the idea that synthetic pesticides and fertilizers require more energy to produce than natural ones, and some are even petroleum-based. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
UncleJ
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 21:24:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
So do we overreact if we ban something that is 'probably carcinogenic'? Especially if it has been observed to increase deaths in wildlife due to bioaccumulation? We don't give something the status 'probably carcinogenic' if we think there is no reason to be concerned. For that we have other designations.
I didn't say that the ban on DTT use was overreacting. I simply do not like it when there is conflicting data regarding the effects of a substance and all that you hear is one side of the argument.
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
But substance X in this case is under debate. Substance X in this case also has a very high tendency to bioaccumulate, which makes the carcinogenicity issue of higher priority. If we have other pesticides that work effectively and does not bioaccumulate, we should go for those and use caution in using substance X.
The problem with DDT is not only the 'probably carcinogenic' status, although that already gives us reason to use caution in using it. Another problem with it is the high tendency to bioaccumulate. Everything is poisonous, if you make the dosage high enough. I would say it is only wise to exercise caution with any substance that does not degrade easily in nature.
I completely agree that we exercise caution and I am definitely not dismissing the potential for damage in the use of DTT.
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
From the article it seems that DDT has been shown to have an effect on colorectal cancer and cancer on the gall bladder, but not on breast cancer. On the other hand, in non-human primates carcinogenicity of low doses has not been evidenced.
First off, thanks for the review article. I haven't had time to read the studies referenced in the section on DTT. I'll have to add them to the stack of papers I hopefully will have time to read before I die.
The review article states basically what I was worried about when I put my first post on this thread
quote:
The situation with regard to epidemiological data, however, is less clear and with industrial exposure the findings are also equivocal.
The people that I was calling “the sky is falling crowd” are those that would dismiss the above statement without a thought.
I'm not sure about the identity of the 1998 article you mentioned. If you have the citation I may have access to the journal at my work. Just let me know and I would be happy to try and find it for you if you would like.
|
"The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." - F. Magellan
"I can't be a missionary! I don't even believe in Jebus!" - H. Simpson |
|
|
|
Sheri berri
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 21:54:08 [Permalink]
|
| tom and mark i'm brand new here let me introduce myself i am a skeptic also, give me a chance to adjust and get to know people a bit, i wouldn't want you too take my word for anything, I appreciate a probing mund , I'm coming from the stance that i find the article highly suspect also as fellow skeptics i wasn't trying to offend anyone just fit in. sorry if i came off rude towards you, i came to this forum looking for a home . I'm not an expert on nutrition but I know a fair amount through research and i live a vegan lifestyle i agree too we shouldn't flip out over pesticides but when is it to much who determines that and by what standards.( a toxoligsts report stating that DDT is not harmful concerns me is all) The laws are very liberal when it comes to food safety, the laws governing what can be said through verbal transmission and written transmission are vast and its spooky, I would like to kow who put out the study that tells alot is there a link??? For all my typing sucks which makes my spelling and grammar horrendous please bear with me as i learn my way around here.. Namaste sheri |
WHEN ONE CEASES TO HAVE A SUBJECTIVE EXPEREINCE WITH 'GOD' , 'GOD' WILL NO LONGER EXIST
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 22:33:42 [Permalink]
|
Factiod: The deadliest animal on the planet, in terms of human lives claimed, is the mosquito. 2 million people a year die from malaria.
Factoid: The massive overspraying of DDT is what lead to it's bioaccumulation in the foodchain of our avian population, thus threatening (seriously threatening) them.
Factoid: DDT can be used in much smaller ammounts than the western world used it, before we banned it, and still be an extremely effective measure to control mosquitos.
In some places where we refuse to finance the use of DDT we could make a significant difference by doing so. I have never read anything about DDT being a danger to humans, and many of you will recall the extremely widespread use it once saw in the USA. They'd just roll by with the truck and gas entire areas, spray it on and around people, in large quantity. If there was a serious health reisk correlated with the use of DDT I think it would be well documented.
In areas where malaria is still a significant killer, it seems to make sense to use DDT in moderation.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 22:45:25 [Permalink]
|
As far as DDT being carcinogenic....
So is saccharine. Yet is is still used to sweeten some diet drinks.
Its all about how much exposure you need to create the carcinogenic effect. While that study linked to did say DDT was carcinogenic, I didn't see what level of exposure was required to achieve that effect in the lab.
I know with rats it took a massive dose of saccharine to produce the effect. Way more than anyone would be exposed to short of eating several pounds of the stuff a day for weeks.
While I am definitely all about protecting the avian populations from the dangers of excessive DDT use, there are places where malaria is so prevalent that it is an active force on human evolution (sickle cell grants a certian resistance to malaria), and malaria claims so many lives that the risk to wildlife should be secondary to saving human lives.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 03:09:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sheri berri
tom and mark i'm brand new here let me introduce myself i am a skeptic also, give me a chance to adjust and get to know people a bit, i wouldn't want you too take my word for anything, I appreciate a probing mund , I'm coming from the stance that i find the article highly suspect also as fellow skeptics i wasn't trying to offend anyone just fit in. sorry if i came off rude towards you, i came to this forum looking for a home . I'm not an expert on nutrition but I know a fair amount through research and i live a vegan lifestyle i agree too we shouldn't flip out over pesticides but when is it to much who determines that and by what standards.( a toxoligsts report stating that DDT is not harmful concerns me is all) The laws are very liberal when it comes to food safety, the laws governing what can be said through verbal transmission and written transmission are vast and its spooky, I would like to kow who put out the study that tells alot is there a link??? For all my typing sucks which makes my spelling and grammar horrendous please bear with me as i learn my way around here.. Namaste sheri
Relax. If I came off a bit harsh, this wasn't my intention.
I think the important point is in the part I bolded. The toxicologist in the OP did not say that DDT is not harmful, only that it's beneficial effects have outweighed the harmful ones. I would add to that, that it still does in third world countries.
Furthermore, regarding pesticides in general the toxicologist said that we shouldn't worry too much, that pesticides are also used in the organic community (but only other pesticides) and that eating fruit every day outweighs the risk of the pesticides on the fruit.
Try to read the OP again with this in mind. You'll see that it is a lot more balanced then you'd think on first sight. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Sheri berri
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 14:48:24 [Permalink]
|
| tom you are correct had i of read it alittle closer i would of seen that you have already answered, but on this one I think I'll still prodcede with caution, lol Namsate sheri |
WHEN ONE CEASES TO HAVE A SUBJECTIVE EXPEREINCE WITH 'GOD' , 'GOD' WILL NO LONGER EXIST
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 04:35:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sheri berri
... but when is it to much who determines that and by what standards.( a toxoligsts report stating that DDT is not harmful concerns me is all) The laws are very liberal when it comes to food safety, the laws governing what can be said through verbal transmission and written transmission are vast and its spooky, I would like to kow who put out the study that tells alot is there a link??? For all my typing sucks which makes my spelling and grammar horrendous please bear with me as i learn my way around here.. Namaste sheri
Especially in these political times we need to be wary of the decision makers. I just posted in the Skepchick forum blog about yet another Bush administration move that smacks of corruption in the FDA. The FDA just approved an electrical device that supposedly treats depression despite it failing its only clinical trail and a unanimous decision by the scientists not to approve it. I doubt food safety is any better right now than mine safety, homeland security, or any other of the things Bush and company have stuck their fingers into.
Re the spelling, I use spell check. It's a free download, easy to use and after a while you start to spell better as well. iespell is the one I use. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/18/2006 04:36:57 |
|
|
|
Sheri berri
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 19:52:31 [Permalink]
|
| BEskep, the FDA is very lenient on its standards, the most money gets the laws through not the safest nor the wisest I have a book on the food laws and I can't find it at the moment but i will keep looking nor can I remember the title, i agree wth you on bush and thankyou for the spelling link boy I need it lol How do you relpy to a particular post I have not figured that out. Namaste Sheri |
WHEN ONE CEASES TO HAVE A SUBJECTIVE EXPEREINCE WITH 'GOD' , 'GOD' WILL NO LONGER EXIST
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
|
| Edited by - Sheri berri on 02/20/2006 21:45:36 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
