Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,310 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
"[…]Concentrations of natural pesticides in plants are usually found at parts per thousand or million rather than parts per billion, which is the usual concentration of synthetic pesticide residues. Therefore, because humans are exposed to so many more natural than synthetic chemicals (by weight and by num- ber), human exposure to natural rodent carcinogens, as defined by high-dose rodent tests, is ubiquitous (Ames et al., 1990b). It is probable that almost every fruit and vegetable in the super- market contains natural pesticides that are rodent carcinogens. Even though only a tiny proportion of natural pesticides have been tested for carcinogenicity, 37 of 71 that have been tested are rodent carcinogens that are present in the common foods[…]"

source: https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/pdfs/handbook.pesticide.toxicology.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,310 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
"[…]The chemicals se- lected for testing in rodents, however, are primarily synthetic (Gold et al., 1997a, b, c, 1998, 1999). The enormous back- ground of human exposures to natural chemicals has not been systematically examined. This has led to an imbalance in both data and perception about possible carcinogenic hazards to hu- mans from chemical exposures. The regulatory process does not take into account (1) that natural chemicals make up the vast bulk of chemicals to which humans are exposed; (2) that the toxicology of synthetic and natural toxins is not fundamentally different; (3) that about half of the chemicals tested, whether natural or synthetic, are carcinogens when tested using current experimental protocols; (4) that testing for carcinogenicity at near-toxic doses in rodents does not provide enough informa- tion to predict the excess number of human cancers that might occur at low-dose exposures; and (5) that testing at the max- imum tolerated dose (MTD) frequently can cause chronic cell killing and consequent cell replacement (a risk factor for cancer that can be limited to high doses) and that ignoring this effect in risk assessment can greatly exaggerate risks.[…]"

source: https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/pdfs...toxicology.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,310 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
"[…] Possible cancer hazards from pesticide residues in food have been much discussed and hotly debated in the scientific lit- erature, the popular press, the political arena, and the courts. Consumer opinion surveys indicate that much of the U.S. pub- lic believes that pesticide residues in food are a serious cancer hazard (Opinion Research Corporation, 1990). In contrast, epi- demiologic studies indicate that the major preventable risk factors for cancer are smoking, dietary imbalances, endogenous hormones, and inflammation (e.g., from chronic infections). Other important factors include intense sun exposure, lack of physical activity, and excess alcohol consumption (Ames et al., 1995). The types of cancer deaths that have decreased since 1950 are primarily stomach, cervical, uterine, and colorectal. Overall cancer death rates in the United States (excluding lung cancer) have declined 19% since 1950 (Ries et al., 2000). The types that have increased are primarily lung cancer [87% is due to smoking, as are 31% of all cancer deaths in the United States (American Cancer Society, 2000)], melanoma (probably due to sunburns), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.[…]"

source: https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/pdfs...toxicology.pdf
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
452 Posts
Hello Eduardo,

In contrast, epi- demiologic studies indicate that the major preventable risk factors for cancer are smoking, dietary imbalances, endogenous hormones, and inflammation (e.g., from chronic infections). Other important factors include intense sun exposure, lack of physical activity, and excess alcohol consumption (Ames et al., 1995). The types of cancer deaths that have decreased since 1950 are primarily stomach, cervical, uterine, and colorectal. Overall cancer death rates in the United States (excluding lung cancer) have declined 19% since 1950 (Ries et al., 2000). The types that have increased are primarily lung cancer [87% is due to smoking, as are 31% of all cancer deaths in the United States (American Cancer Society, 2000)], melanoma (probably due to sunburns), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
A very interesting part from your discussion started in 2019 with no comments from anyone at all, I guess mainly because all agree? Would be surprising to me, more likely nobody cares or objects?

I like to look at our problems (or no-problems) with synthetic aids to produce & protect foods on my own family history.

My grandmother (mother side) passed of stomach cancer in 1944, age 54, she didn't have any contact to the food with PPP's (plant protection products) since they started after the 2nd WW and she never smoked.
My grandfather (fathers side) passed in 1972, age 82 also of stomach cancer and the likelyhood he consumed much 'contaminated' food is slim, a farmer all his life, but with no direct contact to food production, he was the 'lucky-one' in our late history to be a 'manager' that never worked physically himself.
My grandfather (mother side) passed in 1982 of old age at 92. He also farmed all his life, most of his farming age was walking behind horses, he never drove a tractor, he tried, but I told him at age 11 to 'move over' cause I found it more dangerous in traffic if he drives then me.
My mother passed last year, age 96 of natural causes as a worn-out old lady that worked hard all her life with the most brutal war going through her young life from 1943-45 in western Germany, 1939 -43 had the war only remotely in her life.
My dad turns 101 in February (if the lord protects him). Seven years a soldier and 4.5 years in Siberia and 35 years of active farming with PPP's could not kill him, but old age will.
I farm actively for over 50 years, my back is bad, but the rest of me is fit (doctors term).

Average age increases continuously, so we all get older, die later.

Why I write all this? : because since the start of industrialization, the number of us human 'Creatures' get bigger without stopping and feeding us all is only possible with the help of PPP's.

Who thinks differently is a fool and does not understand that there is no Perpetuum Mobile and organic production can't be sustainable because of this = 'Perpetuum Mobile' being impossible, but it makes the once that can afford it (organic food) feel better.

Sure, we have done some very stupid things in agriculture, but everyone is a genius after the fact. We need to question what is right and what not, but today's food is the most healthy considering the options we have.

My grandfathers (mothers side) sentence: 'Nobody wants to get old, but nobody wants to die young' comes to mind.

JoergK.
 

·
Moderator - In Memorium
Aylett, VA 10-frame double deep Langstroth
Joined
·
6,887 Posts
Joerg, I am bored so I will also respond. In my family the saying is that if cancer does not get you young, plan to live until you are old. Those that do not die in their forties and fifties tend to live well into their nineties. Lifestyle choices and heredity seem to me to play a much more important role in longevity than the chemicals we use to insure an adequate food supply. I fear that were we to go back to a totally chemical free form of agriculture, far more people would certainly die of starvation than would be "saved" by their reduced exposure to trace amounts of chemicals.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top