42% of people are obesse in usa. That seems like very obviously the more immediate risk by many orders of magnitude. The risk of pesticides (that are within legal limits) is a bit more nebulous, but seems almost certainly nowhere near as pervasive as obesity. If you have a known risk that's significant, probably best to focus there.

However is this really the trade off? For the most part you can't really buy pesticide free food that's unhealthy.

Sure I can. I can murder myself with pesticide free, ethically raised double cheeseburgers.

It's quite easy to find unhealthy food with the standard list of virtuous labels. Go to any high end restaurant, you'll probably get just that.

the (magnitude of) risk isn't certain yet, but it's unlikely zero, given our history of poorly quantifying the harmfulness of a variety of substances. a reasonable hedge is to buy organic for the dirty dozen and non-organic for other produce. eat less processed sugar regardless, whether you replace it with fruit or not.

Yeah the fact that it took us years to identify issues with like, BPA or trans fats -- and the constant churn on stuff like glyphosate where it feels like regulators continue to be slower than data -- have me worried. Maybe we should be buying more organic ... It's not any extra time and not overall a huge amount of extra money in the grocery budget.

yah, washing produce thoroughly also helps reduce (but doesn't eliminate) the extra chemicals. these couple precautions don't add too much mental/physical burden, imo.

From the article:

“In terms of washing, it should remove some residues on the skin of a product (which will often be fungicides used to prevent rotting during storage and transportation). However, many modern pesticides are what are called ‘systemic’ which means that they are absorbed into the plant and distributed throughout its tissues, reaching any fruits or flowers. As a result, pesticide residues are often contained within the body of the produce itself and therefore washing the surface won’t remove them.”

yah, that’s what i’d dimly remembered from when i looked into it last. it’s good to wash right before eating to get rid of other contaminants too, but it won’t remove all pesticides.

>the (magnitude of) risk isn't certain yet, but it's unlikely zero, given our history of poorly quantifying the harmfulness of a variety of substances. a reasonable hedge is to buy organic for the dirty dozen and non-organic for other produce. eat less processed sugar regardless, whether you replace it with fruit or not.

If the goal is to reduce ingestion of substances applied to crops, then what you describe is not a reasonable hedge as both "organic" and conventional crops use pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. You're better off saving your money by buying conventional produce than spending extra money on the purchase of the same thing.

The residue of pesticides in food is significantly lower, at least in EU. [1]

Some useful points:

- EFSA reports show that conventional agriculture exceeds the approved maximum residue levels more often and by a higher margin

- A study in Sweden reveals a significantly higher (70x) exposure in conventional food vs organic

[1] https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-...

It’s not about reducing substances–it is about substances that are healthy.

>It’s not about reducing substances–it is about substances that are healthy.

I agree that such substances should not post a risk to human health, but there is no argument that organic crop products are any better for humans than conventional products.

Organic food actually doesn't have significantly less pesticides in them. Here is a good video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PmM6SUn7Es

> This is an area where I'm torn. Should I be buying only organic produce or should I be spending the same money and energy on eating less sugar and more of any kind of produce?

Well, if I were you, I would do both, and I would stop working a full-time job so that I could focus on raising my kids.

I would also stop trusting the FDA or any other large org, because they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy and corruptible.

Stoping to work a full time job and buying only organic produce are kinda mutually exclusive.

Buying organic: yes. Eating organic: no.

At least in the US and Canada this should work. Of course not everyone can do it and it's not for everyone.

You gotta live in the right place and know the right stuff. You want some acreage. That's where you'll grow your organic veggie garden. This doesn't need too much of the acreage but you also want woodlands that you can get your fire wood from sustainably. You also want to be close enough to somewhere you can legally hunt and know how to hunt. Then you home school the kids. Et voila!

If you want an example of someone that is at least close enough to this (AFAIK they live 50% of the year w/ their parents in Florida and 50% is what I described above) look into the guy that won season 8 of Alone.

Yeah, that is a nice lifestyle but unattainable for 99.999% of humanity. And not very sustainable in terms of land and resources unless you do it as a community. Even then, you could only sustain a tiny, tiny fraction of earth’s current population like this.

I never suggested it is sustainable for anyone else but one individual, the hypothetical individual being a combination of your situation and my perspective and experience applied to my admittedly limited understanding of your situation.

For me the answer to that question, as with most things in life, is a do a bit of both. Don't just buy the same food from the same place all the time.

Most people choose, conciously or not, to trust in organisations like the FDA to work in their interests, and I don't think that trust is wholly misplaced - sure, guidelines might be stretched sometimes in the interests of getting a pesticide product to market, but it's rare that you hear of someone taking a bite of an apple and dropping dead. The issues that arise from toxicity in food come with small doses of the stuff building up over time. You can aleviate this by varying the source and the type of food you consume. The body is pretty resilient and has mechanisms for dealing with managable levels of toxicity. Potatoes, tomatoes and peppers are all from the nightshade family, one of the nastiest natural poisons, and yet we consume tonnes of these with no ill effect.

Try to buy seasonal produce - organic or not, things grown and sold locally will have way less chemical treatments applied to them.

Take the kids to your local farmers market once a month - talk to the stall holders and learn whats fresh and where it comes from. You get a fun family outing and a bit of variety in your food. A little bit of the good stuff is bound to help your body process the chemicals from the bad stuff you buy the rest of the time. It doesnt have to be all or nothing.

What does it mean to spend money and time on eating less sugar? Spend no money and no time by not buying sugar products, that's it.

It's often more expensive (if not in cash, than in time and effort of preparation) to live on healthy calories versus cheap ones sourced from corn syrup.

Organic requires far more land, more water, more fertilizer and more energy than traditionaly farmed produce. In addition, the pesticed sprayed on crops do not penetrate the skin, and can be removed easy by rinsing the produce with water. But organic crops contain endogenous pesticides that cannot be washed off. Organic crops have been selectively bread over many years to be pest resistant, so that they could be grown commercially by factory farming. They achieve this by producing more natural pesticides, which permeate through all parts of the fruit or veg and make organic produce far more toxic than than traditional food.

This is the first time I have heard this endogenous pesticide argument and I gotta say, it seems extraordinary! Is there some solid evidence for this?

(Also the argument that applied pesticides are on the surface of plants/produce only is incorrect as a blanket statement. There are many systemic insecticides on the market and they are usually preferable due to duration of protection.)

Indeed the article speaks to this:

“ In terms of washing, it should remove some residues on the skin of a product (which will often be fungicides used to prevent rotting during storage and transportation). However, many modern [synthetic] pesticides are what are called ‘systemic’ which means that they are absorbed into the plant and distributed throughout its tissues, reaching any fruits or flowers. As a result, pesticide residues are often contained within the body of the produce itself and therefore washing the surface won’t remove them.”

I’m interested, can you share some source for this information?

Is probably saying that plants accumulate deterring substances against plagues, but this can be applied only in some cases

Such plants would assure to remove unpleasant substances in mature fruits, that are carefully designed to be eaten and to be as safe as possible.

Because different plant species compete for our attention. A plant that keeps putting harmful substances in its fruits is losing the game at middle term. We would just spread more seeds of its tastier competitors instead.

Tubers, bulbs or leaves would compete in a different league in that case

> A plant that keeps putting harmful substances in its fruits is losing the game at middle term. We would just spread more seeds of its tastier competitors instead.

Humans indeed find some endogenous pesticides unpleasant; but we enjoy others very much, to the point of addiction. For example, nicotine from tobacco dust was used historically as a pesticide on other plants, and many modern synthetic pesticides are nicotine analogs (neonics). On a milder note, the compounds that give many herbs their flavor are also insecticides--it's easier to grow basil without an aphid problem than lettuce. The question of why we evolved to enjoy those poisons is interesting, with no clear answer:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3817850/

That said, the original claim makes little sense. Natural pest resistance often arises from higher concentrations of endogenous pesticides, but this would generally just mean something like "stronger-tasting herbs", not any harm. Even if it were harmful, conventional growers prefer varieties with good natural resistance too.

I don't think that defensive substances to made the plant unpalatable should be put in the same category as modern pesticides, designed to kill everything by contact (including predators) instead of to deter the plant eaters. Is a totally new level.

> ..modern pesticides, designed to kill everything by contact (including predators) instead of to deter the plant eaters..

This is not an accurate statement, obviously modern pesticides are not as targeted as would be optimal but they are most certainly not designed to kill everything by contact. For example I will apply Coragen later in the season when I need Grasshopper control, despite greater expense, because it is much less harmful to bees than more cost-effective options.

>This is an area where I'm torn. Should I be buying only organic produce

No.

>should I be spending the same money and energy on eating less sugar and more of any kind of produce?

Yes.

It is no surprise you feel torn. Tons of money is invested into the marketing of "organic" produce when it has, in-fact, ZERO positive gain over conventional produce. The FUD being forced down everyone's throat by the "organic" industry is designed to make you feel exactly like that. When you introduce doubt, you create a path to convince folks into spending money on your product.

But don't take my or anyone else's word for it. If you can muster the time, spend an hour or so perusing Wikipedia, reading articles and collecting sources and you'll find in relatively short time the "organic" thing is solely a money grab. With "organic" food, you are getting the same exact thing grown by conventional methods but at a higher price.

Groups such as the one mentioned in this article don't want you to perform your own research, they just want you to believe what they have on their web site. It's bogus.

If you are going to make such unequivocal statements you should back them up with sources, otherwise you are just adding more noise than signal.

>If you are going to make such unequivocal statements you should back them up with sources, otherwise you are just adding more noise than signal.

You're correct. But as I am not on my personal machine, my catalog isn't available to me and the time it would take to recall all those URLs I don't have. There's good news, however, my statements aren't novel and are very easily backed by less than 3 minutes between a web search and Wikipedia. I hope you hold the author of this article, as well as those within the group mentioned, to the same standard as they have also supplied no reputable sources.

> With "organic" food, you are getting the same exact thing grown by conventional methods but at a higher price.

But thats the problem: you have no way of knowing if "conventional methods" (i.e. no pesticides) were used to grow the produce unless there is a label signaling it. That label is called "organic".

>But thats the problem: you have no way of knowing if "conventional methods" (i.e. no pesticides) were used to grow the produce unless there is a label signaling it. That label is called "organic".

I don't follow. Both "organic" and conventional agriculture use pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.

Not synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-....

USDA certified organic foods are grown and processed according to federal guidelines addressing, among many factors, soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and weed control, and use of additives. Organic producers rely on natural substances and physical, mechanical, or biologically based farming methods to the fullest extent possible.

Produce can be called organic if it’s certified to have grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest. Prohibited substances include most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. In instances when a grower has to use a synthetic substance to achieve a specific purpose, the substance must first be approved according to criteria that examine its effects on human health and the environment (see other considerations in “Organic 101: Allowed and Prohibited Substances”).

Conventional pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are more effective and sustainable. Conventional products require less of the substance to be applied and less frequently. If the concern is about the impact on the environment and humans, then the logical choice between the organic method and conventional is conventional.

Even if that is accurate(source?), quantity applied says nothing about the danger of the substance to humans.

>Even if that is accurate(source?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming

>quantity applied says nothing about the danger of the substance to humans.

Quantity is the deciding factor when talking about toxicity to humans. If I've misunderstood your comment, please correct me.

Let’s just take one example:

Sodium Bicarbonate, commonly known as Baking Soda works well as an efficient and cost effective fungicide and insecticide. It is actually registered with the EPA for use against certain plant fungi, powdery mildew. As a foliar spray used in the garden, it works wonders against fungus and bugs.

There’s approximately no amount of sodium bicarbonate a person could reasonably ingest, in this context or any other, that would be either immediately harmful or prove to be detrimental long term.

You’d have to really try.

The point is that if a product is twice as toxic to humans (or bees, or some other off-target species) but four times as toxic to the target pest, then the grower can use a quarter as much and the adverse impact is half. The relevant factor is that "therapeutic index", not toxicity per gram. By that standard some organic pesticides are better than the conventional average (e.g. azadirachtin), while others are worse (e.g. pyrethrin, or rotenone until it was banned).

Also, please don't take gardening advice from whatever website you're quoting. Sodium bicarbonate is not an effective insecticide. It's a marginally effective fungicide, though potassium bicarbonate would be less toxic to the plants. It's indeed pretty safe for humans, but the dose makes the poison even there and people have died from sodium bicarbonate overdose:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24734306.2020.1...

Unfortunately consumer gardening advice seems to be the domain of SEO specialists, not gardening specialists. University extension offices publish high-quality information with much less visibility, like:

https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/

Might apply to vinegar, too, another insecticide, although I don’t know if consuming huge quantities of vinegar is bad for you. I’m guessing not as bad as the same quantity of Round-up or a variety of other synthetics.

Many plants would die quickly if you use vinegar and it gets in the soil, same with baling soda. Thats stuff that will work for house plants but not really in a field unless you have a lot of people with tiny brushes...

Sodium bicarbonate isn't actually used in farming like this. Copper pesticides[1] are though, and they are not without their own downsides and consequences.

This article touches on pesticide use in organic farming[2].

I like organic farming, but a lot of what passes for "organic" in the US is far from ideal and feels more like regulator-sanctioned scam. I'd feel more confident buying organic produce if there were stricter guidelines and enforcement.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_pesticide

[2] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogs...