3 ms·
>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 reason
by Nicksil 5y ago
>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.
- thrwn_frthr_awy 5y agoIt’s not about reducing substances–it is about substances that are healthy.
- Nicksil 5y ago>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.
- marcorx 5y agoThe 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/s12940-017-0315-4 https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-...