Common sense is the compendium of experience.
In reference to the toxic effect of limes as sited below, people in a country
that grows limes know that contact of their juice with the skin and a minimum
amount of sunlight will dramatically effect you by discoloring the skin and
creating boils. I can likewise name two plants in Alaska and a couple in
Arkansas that do the same. Humans through history passed that wisdom on to
their children. Natural toxicity exists all over.
No one has ever contended that natural plant or animal pesticide defenses
would not effect humans. Try a brown recluse, snapdragons or too many fava
beans. It took centuries of trial and error learning to develop a cultural
wisdom on the dangers under differing circumstances to natural toxins. Does
anyone really know really anything about synthetic pesticides under differing
circumstances, in real life? In creating new, synthetic defenses for plants
and animals, we have not passed onto our children and society any real life
My childish question is very clear. Why would we want to introduce synthetic
or natural biocide substances into living forms? The only reason I know is
to sustain life longer or better the quality of life. To my knowledge and
experience regarding synthetic pesticides, nothing has confirmed that
synthetic pesticides in agriculture or life in general have done either one
of these. They may have kept the ticks down on my lawn or stop athletes foot
in my boots, or knocked mosquitoes out of my swamp out back or purged me from
some disease or parasite, but all these things could have been done by humans
gaining the knowledge on how the ecosystem works and blending with the
ecosystem for common goals. In agricultural synthetic pesticides have made
life easier for the farmer, and some might contend they cut down on bacteria
and fungal problems that actually were created by intensive agricultural
production itself--like intensive hog production or pipeline milkers, mass
drying of peanuts or bovine mastitis.
I once got a piece of steel in my eye, chipped while tapping hardened steel
against hardened steel without glasses on. In utter amazement, Wells Eye
Hospital in Philadelphia removed it with an 8-hour surgery-using eye piercing
minute electromagnets. The surgical equipment was developed for just such a
problem. Minute pieces of steel penetrating the eye. The three physicians
that operated told me the equipment was only invented after hardened steel
was perfected and started ending up in eyes. Likewise, we perfected
synthetic pesticides to take care of the pest problems we have invented by an
economy driven to expand sales without taking a common sense look at the
First there was only a few synthetic pesticides, now we are dealing with the
complexity of many variations of synthetic pesticides, used, without
identification, in everything from the insole of your shoes, all shoes, to
your mouthwash, in lawn care, at the public school, in the water supply,
toothpaste and shampoo, mixed with the unknowns of all the synthetic plastics
found everywhere we live, transport ourselves and work. There is the unknown
content of synthetic food additives, growth hormones in livestock and fruit,
processing aids, enzymes, natural colorings and flavorings, endocrine
interrupting pesticides, carrots that are treated with a substance to kill
the adjoining weeds because it grows so slow, then are subsequently run
through a hydrocooler treated with fungicides and bactericides. Now mix all
that with what you call potent natural pesticides in foods and you are
getting a dose that may have chemical interactions completely unrecognized in
scientific studies. Is it any wonder folks would rather not have GMO
modified plants, that are developed to withstand doses of pesticides that
formerly the plants never could, as the basis for their diet in the near
future. It is just common sense to say no.
Plus, we are buying meat, dairy, produce, grain, bean and fiber products not
from a single farm that we might understand how the food and fiber was
raised, but that are blended from many farms in which we have no idea what
synthetic substances were applied and than being mixed with the processing
aids, enzymes and food additives for the next salsa and chips we eat.
I simply do not panic, I buy organic. Actually, I raise almost everything
organic, and I also work to make sure all consumers know what they are
getting when they buy an organic product. The Organic Foods Production Act
(OFPA) sets forth standards that offer a direction. No synthetics are
allowed to contact or be part of processed food products labeled and sold as
"organically produced." Only a very short list of active synthetic
substances can be considered for allowance for use on organic certified
farms. These are subject to extensive and intensive multidisciplinary review
and evaluation before they can be used--plus they must make common sense.
That evaluation is critical. Not with standing the possibility, and it is
only a possibility, of a synthetic being used in organic farming, OFPA
clearly states, no synthetic substances can be used on a certified organic
farm. OFPA also allows for prohibiting natural substances in the farm
production and in the content of processed organic food. And further yet,
OFPA mandates the review of every inert synthetic ingredient used in any
natural pesticide used in organic farming. For me there is no question. I
want organic food for my children, for my loves, for myself. Cheap health
insurance in this chemical risk prone world.
I encourage everyone to seek full implementation of all the details of the
Organic Foods Production Act during the Proposed Organic Rule public comment
period. The comment period will begin sometime in this month of December.
Email commenting to the USDA is possible.
Best regards, Eric Kindberg
sanet-mg-digest Friday, November 28 1997 Volume 01 : Number 082
In this issue:
Are natural plant products hazardous to our health?
[Fwd: Naturally Occurring Carcinogens]
Re: Are natural plant products hazardous to our health?
Re: [Fwd: Naturally Occurring Carcinogens]
Re: one more pasture hog producer in Indiana
Re: FDA as keeper of truth?....Yikes!
See the end of the digest for information about sanet-mg-digest.
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:13:41 +0000
From: Craig Lanoye <email@example.com>
Subject: Are natural plant products hazardous to our health?
From: David Kendra <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Natural Plant Products and Health Hazards
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:31:57 -0600
Organization: Novartis Seeds, Inc.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U)
Xref: news.together.net alt.agriculture.misc:4654
Several folks who publish to this newsgroup have implied that natural
plant products are not as environmentally damaging as man-made
chemicals. There is a large volume of research and field observations
that suggest otherwise. Below is just a small snippet of whats
On August 8, 1984, the Office of Disease Control and
Epidemiology, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,
was notified by a nurse at a day camp in Owings Mills, Maryland,
of a rash illness reported among 12 children during the previous
week. The rash, confined to the dorsa of the hands and extensor
and flexor surfaces of the forearms and in the form of blotches,
speckles, and streaks, was macular, hyperpigmented, and
nonpruritic. No other signs or symptoms were noted.
Dermatologists diagnosed the rash as a phototoxic contact
dermatitis. Investigation disclosed that limes used in an art
class to make pomander balls were incriminated as the cause of
More info and actually data can be found at:
For Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Classification: Medical Sciences
Contributed by Bruce N. Ames July 17, 1990 Revised:
August 15, 1990 (415) 642-5165 - phone (415) 643-7935 - fax
II. DIETARY PESTICIDES (99.99% ALL NATURAL)
(carcinogens / mutagens / clastogens / coffee)
BRUCE N. AMES*, MARGIE PROFET, AND LOIS SWIRSKY GOLD
Division of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720
Abbreviations: MTD = maximum tolerated dose. * To whom correspondence
should be addressed.
The toxicological significance of exposures to synthetic chemicals is
examined in the context of exposures to
naturally-occurring chemicals. We calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of
the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to
defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested in
high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent
carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods. We
conclude that natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be
positive in animal cancer tests. We also conclude that at the low doses
of most human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide
residues are insignificant.
Tracy, thanks for the original link to the parent site.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command