Sanet Post, Patricia Dines,
Re: Quality of organic Food vs. eating habits
December 13, 1996
Well, what a saucy little volley this has become (back and forth, back and forth...). So many things one might respond to.
First, I want to chime in (again) on my support for people sharing their point of view, both facts and opinions. Of course, it's always useful to be clear when one speaks which is which.... And I support us having a civil tone in these conversations, focussing on information and mutually-supportive conversation toward a shared goal, not attacks.
Given that, I have two responses to David's first post:
I feel that your important facts are diminished by your vehement opinions of the relative importance of certain variables, your dismissal of facts and perspectives that could be well-argued (ex. the role of vitamins and minerals in health), and your apparent dismissal of my description of how pesticide and other nutrient issues are inter-related and not separate.
In my last email, I gave a context which included your valuable contributions/points as well as those who have concerns about pesticides, one which allowed all concerns to live happily under the umbrella of "a range of concerns about the nutritional quality of the food America eats." Yet you felt you had to come back again and, with a great deal of force, minimize concerns about pesticides and health relative to other factors.
I won't repeat my entire email, but I didn't really see my points reflected in your response. Such as the fact that those making junk final products often start with lifeless food, while those making quality products tend to start with alive organic food, just because of their value systems and sales approaches. That I find organic food more alive (tasting, feeling when/after eat) and that this can be one way to inspire people to make healthier choices - to offer them a truly exciting choice (and that they may choose their current unhealthy choices because they find fresh mainstream food so tasteless and are looking for zip). In other words, I don't think one can separate the issue of creating an alive nutritious "raw material" and the packaging and eating choices later down the line. I find them very strongly related, and that understanding that gives them most powerful answers and paths to action (and supports in improving our overall system).
I'm just puzzled by why that inclusive framing doesn't work for you, that you have to keep coming back with assertions that make pesticides minimal relative to other nutrition issues. I agree these other nutrition issues are important, but I really don't feel that you've proven that pesticide issues are less important or even unrelated.
Your arguments seem to be very consistent with the pesticide company "relative risk" arguments - that pesticides aren't as bad as other things, like dietary fats - arguments they've done a good job of seeding in the mainstream medical community (along with their anti-alternative medicine arguments that vitamins and minerals don't have that much to do with disease, another easily arguable point). From your alignment with this position, I suspect that you've been heavily influenced by this type of mainstream viewpoint, and perhaps don't recognize how it tracks so well with the chemical company's objectives to disempower both alternative ag and alternative med.
I don't want to put words in HJOSEPH's emouth, but I think that alignment with the chemical company message might have been what was underneath the summary dismissal that you got from him/her. Note: I don't claim to speak for HJOSEPH and also hope that he will articulate his own concerns. And I agree with those who point out that it is useful to give specific factual responses rather than just dismissing someone's viewpoint. Unfortunately, I feel it is just that type of out-of-hand dismissal, David, that you've given to the specific points I articulated in my email.
I'd also like to point out to those who say they want to get the health field perspective should remember that there are debates in that field as there are in the sustainable ag field, and one person's view doesn't necessarily represent the whole field.
My assessment is that David is quite knowledgeable about the mainstream perspective on nutrition, which has value and I appreciate being included in the discussion. However, my comments lead me to conclude that he doesn't have that depth of knowledge about pesticides in food or the strong proven positive role that vitamins and minerals play in health, and deficiencies can cause in disease (I don't mean the 60mg daily dose of vitamin C mainstream says is enough, but is only enough to prevent scurvy, not other problems - I mean the valuable work on vitamins/minerals in "alternative" medicine), let alone the the issues of health factors in food that we haven't isolated yet or are harder to see from a Western viewpoint, like "chi" or vitality/aliveness.
For instance, regarding obesity, after dividing the issue into "IMPACT OF EATING HABITS AND FOOD SUPPLY ALTERATION" and "IMPACT OF NUTRITIONALLY SUPERIOR ORGANIC FOOD", you say "The main dietary factors are excess calories, esp. from fat and sugar, and lack of dietary fiber." and assess the "IMPACT OF NUTRITIONALLY SUPERIOR ORGANIC FOOD" as moderate (compared to "very important" for IMPACT OF EATING HABITS AND FOOD SUPPLY ALTERATION). You say, "Any vitamin/mineral/ phytochemical superiority has little direct impact on obesity."
I say that's an opinion masquerading as a fact. How much have you researched the vitamins and minerals, especially in alternative (non AMA literature) ex. the results from identifying and adjusting low chromium levels? Have you uinvestigated why the sweetening herb stevia is banned from U.S. sodas and other products, when it's used freely and safely all over the world, including in Japan and South America, is much sweeter than sugar for the same quantity, and yet instead of being bad for the pancreas (as sugar is) is quite nutritious for it. I imagine how much harm is being done in this country (including to the diabetics you mention later) because stevia cannot be used in these products instead of sugar.
And, again, I feel that one reason a lot of people eat junk food (which adds weight) is because they find mainstream produce lifeless and nonvibrant (ex. tomatoes, strawberries) and are looking for more zip. "Eating habits" is about _food choice_, and wouldn't taste and experienced vitality be a factor in that? Also, many of the companies who are focussing on healthy food (low fat but not by "cheating" with Olestra, low salt, etc.) are the same as the ones who want to start with the alive deliciousness of organic food. As I detailed in my previous email, I find these factors completely interwoven.
I could go down the line and point out facts you don't seem to consider in each of yourpoints and conclusions, each time you brush your hand to disregard the role that the choice between pesticide and organic food has in that disease.
For instance, you talk about cancer but don't seem to consider the fact that a very conservative mainstream analysis has stated that 2% of cancer deaths in this country are caused by pesticides - or 10,000 human beings. That doesn't include those survivors who have expensive and body-mutilating surgery and live the rest of their lives with the Damoclean sword of its recurrence over their heads, nor the many other people harmed through pesticides other effects (neurological, neuromuscular, reproductive, birth defects, immune system, etc....) You talk about grains, fruits, and veggies role in preventing cancer and call that "very important". Yes, they are factors, certainly. Then you say organic food has some effect through having more phytochemicals and call their role "moderate". Perhaps. But also perhaps organic food helps prevent cancer through the lack of carcinogens! And the reduced carcinogens in our shared environment! Not to mention those people (alternative medicine again) who are curing cancer through diet, vitamins/minerals, and organic food. Who are you to say that vitamins/minerals and organic food are less important that eatring grains, fruits and veggies? That's not evidence, that's not a fact, that's an opinion!
Another example of how silly this gets is under Osteoporosis, where your division of impacts (which I consider a false and unclear split) is shown to be just that. After setting an assumption that organic foods have more nutrients, you put "Only 15% of U.S. women over age 35 meet their daily calcium needs." under "IMPACT OF EATING HABITS AND FOOD SUPPLY ALTERATION" - leaving IMPACT OF NUTRITIONALLY SUPERIOR ORGANIC FOOD" as "moderate", with no mention of calcium. But you said your assumption was that we got more nutrition from organic food....? And this disregards the whole conversation that dairy isn't fit for the human body and does harm to it, which would lead one to get more from plants and increase the importance of having the most nutritious plants possible.
But really the main point to me is this - these points don't need to be in opposition. If one's concerned about cancer, why not eat whole grains, fruits and vegetables _that are organic_? That seems like the best bet to me! Sure, buying organic and then eating Olestra etc. isn't a wise choice. But - especially if you buy products at a health food store - you don't tend to find organic products packaged with Olestra - in general (there are exceptions), I find the organic manufacturers are also most attentive to real healthy ingredients down the line (and vice-versa). I never said one should buy organic and disregard all other variables. But I think organic is an incredibly positive and important choice to make for health, not separate from the other healthy choices one can make.
Which brings me back to my main question - Why is it so important for you to prove that choosing organic/nutritious ag is of so much less importance? Why isn't it enough to say that there are many inter-related unhealthy aspects in our food choices and there are a spectrum of positive choices we can make in our food to improve our health - including organic?
I agree with you that those concerned about a healthy food supply can look at factors others than issues such as the value of organic and the importance of high nutrition raw produce. I value your reminder that those packaging food can learn from the fast-food genre to increase sales of overall-healthy food. Still, I think organic food can play a vital and valuable role in increasing our national health, from its higher nutrients, reduced toxins (in the food and our shared environment), and often higher vitality/aliveness - and I don't think it's trivial/less important to put attention on that. Why does it seem so important to you to say it is? Not everyone packages food or has influence over those who do. Some just grow it, and it's valuable for them to consider the best food they can produce and what qualities they might consider that to be. To me, that's supportive of creating healthy food, not in opposition to it or less important than it.
Anyway, I value the information and perspectives various group members have contributed (and, I'm sure will contribute) to this conversation, and value the opportunity for us all to have a constructive civil dialogue that supports us in working cooperatively together (i.e., no unncessary oppositions or "better than"s) in creating a healthier future for us all. I too hope that can include a cooperative and mutually-supportive alliance among those working on the whole range of issues regarding health and healthy food.
Sincerely -
Patricia Dines
