From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Oganic Foods "Non-essential"???
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:07:22 GMT

George Clark replies:

>Also, buying organic foods, as Ted suggests, is non-essential. There is
>no data anywhere supporting claims that organic food is healthier than
>food grown with fertilizer and pesticides.

I would imagine that a lot of things are non-essential, like be 
the better taste of organic produce, especially fruits, over that 
of non-organically grown foods.

Also non-essential would be the possibly greater nutritional
value of truly organically grown foods which one can always make
up for by eating a greater quantity of foods with a poorer
nutritional value.  Quantity can compensate for quality.

And yes, I guess even the lesser environmental costs of organic
farming over that of heavily dependent chemical farming is non-
essential, unless you consider the value of preserving an
environmental integrity/diversity important in its own right.


Now, with respect to the potential health risk of pesticides, I
agree that pesticides are NOT as big a problem as the public
imagination would seem to think them to be, but this is not to
say that there is no problems whatsoever.

Food additives/pesticides are thought to only account for about
1% of all cancer deaths (see Doll & Peto, "The causes of cancer:
Quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the U.S.
today"  JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1081, pg.
1256).   This lower estimate from the usual 3% is due to the
adjustment of taking into account the POSSIBLE "protective effect
"of chemical antioxidants and other preservatives" (e.g., BHT).

For some people, even 1% is too much, but I think this is a
misplaced worry when you consider that diet (in particular too
much fat in the diet) accounts for 35% of the risk for cancer
deaths.  This is more than even smoking!

     Proportions of Cancer Deaths Attributed to Various Different
     Factors

     factor(s)                               best estimate
     
     Diet                                         35
     tobacco                                      30
     infection?                                   10
     reproductive & sexual behaviour               7
     occupation                                    4
     alcohol                                       3
     Geophysical factors**					 3
     pollution                                     2
     medicines/medical procedures                  1
     food additives                                1
     industrial products                           1
     unknown                                       ?.

	**only 1%, NOT 3%, of geophysical factors could reasonably 
        be described as "avoidable".  Goephysical factors also 
        cause a much greater proportion of non-fatal cancers 
        (up to 30% of all cancers, depending on ethnic mix and 
        latitute) because of the importance of UV light in causing 
        the relatively non-fatal basal cell and squamous cell 
        carcinomas of sinlight-exposed skin.

It is quite evident that the public worries about the risks in
the wrong order of priority.  Not smoking and reducing that fat
in your diet should be the first desideratum in your life, the #1
health concern!

This is not to say, however, that one shouldn't be concerned
about pollution since besides the mere 2% risk for human cancer,
pollution does have other health disadvantages (especially to
asthmatic or hyerallergic sufferers), and also has an
environmental and aesthetic cost.  Yet, most people think that
pollution is attributed to causing more cancer than what the best
empirical evidence actually indicates.  The same with food
additives.

An important psychological reason for this misplacement of what
should be the first priorities of concern is that at least with
the "fat" in our diet, this is something we all can control for
ourselves but we simply don't have the same degree of potential
control of avoiding pollution.

In sum, organic produce could well be deem "non-essential", but
personally I enjoy my food and my health far too much to skimp on
quality in this domain.  Ok, so I don't get to buy a nice luxury
red "phallic-shaped" sports-car (which is clearly non-essential
in my system of values and psychological need), but my food does
taste better.  :-)

                                   Happy Holiday Season,

                                        ted