8 ms·

The problem with many of these is that, as in everything else, the dose makes the poison. Fluoride is a perfect example: too little and your bones are weak & to

The problem with many of these is that, as in everything else, the dose makes the poison. Fluoride is a perfect example: too little and your bones are weak & tooth decay sets in easily, too much and you get fluoridosis. Just the right amount (which is a reasonably large range) and you're healthy. Maganese is the same, it's an essential trace nutrient for pretty much all living things, and you'll die without it, but too much will kill you. The most dangerous agricultural pesticides are the neonicotinoids, and they're used in organic farming. They tend to decay quickly, so if the food is properly managed and they're not applied too late they won't be found in the food. Now, not everything that is dangerous is necessary. There's no benefit from eating mercury, for example, but there are always safe exposure levels. Some compounds bio-accumulate, so the safe exposure levels have to be set for a lifetime. Most organic mercury compounds are of this sort, and due to their extreme toxicity the safe exposure levels are very low.

vixin 12y ago
I think you mean 'subject to further studies, we think that .... x and y levels of these substances are safe'.
platz 12y ago
I think lead is especially nasty in that even small doses have been shown to have proportionately damaging effects.
dools 12y ago
Which organic certification are you referring to which allows the use of neonicotinoids? Looking through the Australian ones it doesn't appear any of them would allow the use of neonicotinoids[1] but I have the feeling I don't know enough about it to say so conclusively ... [1]http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/about/contact/aco http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/about/contact/aco
- VLM 12y ago
  Doesn't appear to be allowed per USDA regs either. Eventually we're going to pinpoint OP by a process of elimination. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f10... If that fails, for a negative perspective, go to eCFR, chapter 7 Ag, part 205 USDA organic program, 205.602 "Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production" lists (i) Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate). Which is probably close enough to OPs claim. Or for a positive perspective 205.601 "Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production" section (e) "As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control)" and that lists 10 allowable bug killers none of which seem to be neonicotinoids. By negative and positive I don't mean some electrical thing but words like "can if you want" vs "no you will not". Either way (edited: Both ways...) no nicotinoids on USDA labeled produce in the USA. State regs are only allowed to be stricter than fed. So "Thats OK in California but not Wisconsin" is outright a non-starter if its already forbidden by USDA. Now if you mean in practice, like if a chemist ran tests on randomly purchased organic produce in the USA, I'd say hell yes you'll find it in organic produce. There's like 50 layers of middlemen and shippers in the food industry, you have a personal relationship with none of them (I buy beef from a family friend and bought vegetables from a great uncle who retired into being a gentleman farmer, that's "different" than driving to a local food store), and all of them have a huge financial interest in taking visually identical apples from "Chemical McWasteland's Industrial Farm" and putting them in boxes from "Sunshine Unicorn Organic Farm". How many layers of middlemen would make about a buck a pound or more by merely accidentally selling non-organic food as organic? And how corrupt is this country? In practice the primary effect of buying and eating organic produce is almost certainly feeling better while making corrupt individuals wealthier, even if theoretically health benefits could be available from organic produce. So the TLDR is legally wrong in the USA at the fed level both by being specifically forbidden AND by not listed as permitted, yet is also probably right that if you buy an "organic" apple at a convenience store, it probably isn't due to corruption.
  - kerkeslager 12y ago
    The problem of middlemen is a large part of why I am involved in a food coop. Our coop buys mostly from local farmers, and if you have any questions about how something was grown, they provide contact information for the farmers. I've spoken to the people who grow my onions and mushrooms in person.
adrianwaj 12y ago
Do you think the Chinese toxic waste, aka "manufactured sodium fluoride and byproducts" that is put in public water supplies resembles anything like the calcium fluoride that the body needs?
- XorNot 12y ago
  I think you don't actually understand how ionic salts work in solution.
  - hderms 12y ago
    The key word in his sentence was "byproducts"
    - XorNot 12y ago
      At which point he's free to show that the government is clearly using contaminated fluoridation equipment for the water. But that doesn't make water fluoridation a bad idea. Conspiracy theorists need to pick one mechanism (and then actually find out about it).
      - adrianwaj 12y ago
        No, the onus of proof is on the government that what they are doing to the water is good, or rather to provide a precise ingredients list of what they are adding to the water, where they are getting it from and how it is created... on a location-by-location basis, and at regular intervals. And that can be cross-checked by third parties if they should wish. If there's a conspiracy, it's the one regarding what is supposedly good for my health and teeth. Who says I need "fluoride" delivered to me in this manner? Why can't I opt-in or at least have the information at-hand to make a decision as to whether I want to avoid tap water? Every water bill should have a precise ingredients list of the "product" being supplied. Why should water be different from any other thing I buy to drink.. especially in such large quantities, and as an ingredient indirectly in so many other foods I eat. It should be labelled as such. And it will never be because the ingredients are toxic - the onus of proof is on the government to accurately label their product to prove me wrong (if that is their goal.) I can say anything I want, but I still don't need to prove or individually "find out" anything. I am not doing the tampering.
a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
> Fluoride is a perfect example: too little and your bones are weak As far as I know there is zero biological requirement for fluoride. Fluoride can help mask systemic problems like mineral deficiency that lead to tooth decay, but nobody has ever had a cavity due to fluoride deficiency.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Same argument for shoes? Nobody ever hurt their foot because of shoe deficiency; it was the thorn that did it. I think its disingenuous to ignore the obvious benefits of hardening enamel, regardless of other health issues in our population.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    Shoes don't present a risk to health and intelligence. And shoes aren't a band aid for a serious underlying health problem. Tooth decay is not a natural consequence of sugar consumption or a lack of fluoride. Ever hear the expression "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth?" It alludes to the fact that tooth decay is a clear sign of serious deficiencies. That fluoride substitution reactions can mask the symptom is interesting but probably not a great public health approach.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      To be pedantic, you can argue that shoes do all that. Soft weak feet and vitamin D deficiency are issues exacerbated by shoes. Many shoes are designed solely as band aids for foot problems. And helping teeth stay healthy in the presence of deficiencies is NOT a public health problem; no doctor is looking at your teeth like he looks at a horse, to diagnose your health. Yet tooth problems lead to diet problems lead to more health problems. Fluoride is easily arguably a public health benefit, because it Mitigates symptoms of other issues.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

vixin 12y ago

I think you mean 'subject to further studies, we think that .... x and y levels of these substances are safe'.

platz 12y ago

I think lead is especially nasty in that even small doses have been shown to have proportionately damaging effects.

dools 12y ago

Which organic certification are you referring to which allows the use of neonicotinoids? Looking through the Australian ones it doesn't appear any of them would allow the use of neonicotinoids[1] but I have the feeling I don't know enough about it to say so conclusively ... [1]http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/about/contact/aco http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/about/contact/aco

VLM 12y ago
Doesn't appear to be allowed per USDA regs either. Eventually we're going to pinpoint OP by a process of elimination. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f10... If that fails, for a negative perspective, go to eCFR, chapter 7 Ag, part 205 USDA organic program, 205.602 "Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production" lists (i) Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate). Which is probably close enough to OPs claim. Or for a positive perspective 205.601 "Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production" section (e) "As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control)" and that lists 10 allowable bug killers none of which seem to be neonicotinoids. By negative and positive I don't mean some electrical thing but words like "can if you want" vs "no you will not". Either way (edited: Both ways...) no nicotinoids on USDA labeled produce in the USA. State regs are only allowed to be stricter than fed. So "Thats OK in California but not Wisconsin" is outright a non-starter if its already forbidden by USDA. Now if you mean in practice, like if a chemist ran tests on randomly purchased organic produce in the USA, I'd say hell yes you'll find it in organic produce. There's like 50 layers of middlemen and shippers in the food industry, you have a personal relationship with none of them (I buy beef from a family friend and bought vegetables from a great uncle who retired into being a gentleman farmer, that's "different" than driving to a local food store), and all of them have a huge financial interest in taking visually identical apples from "Chemical McWasteland's Industrial Farm" and putting them in boxes from "Sunshine Unicorn Organic Farm". How many layers of middlemen would make about a buck a pound or more by merely accidentally selling non-organic food as organic? And how corrupt is this country? In practice the primary effect of buying and eating organic produce is almost certainly feeling better while making corrupt individuals wealthier, even if theoretically health benefits could be available from organic produce. So the TLDR is legally wrong in the USA at the fed level both by being specifically forbidden AND by not listed as permitted, yet is also probably right that if you buy an "organic" apple at a convenience store, it probably isn't due to corruption.
- kerkeslager 12y ago
  The problem of middlemen is a large part of why I am involved in a food coop. Our coop buys mostly from local farmers, and if you have any questions about how something was grown, they provide contact information for the farmers. I've spoken to the people who grow my onions and mushrooms in person.

adrianwaj 12y ago

Do you think the Chinese toxic waste, aka "manufactured sodium fluoride and byproducts" that is put in public water supplies resembles anything like the calcium fluoride that the body needs?

XorNot 12y ago
I think you don't actually understand how ionic salts work in solution.
- hderms 12y ago
  The key word in his sentence was "byproducts"
  - XorNot 12y ago
    At which point he's free to show that the government is clearly using contaminated fluoridation equipment for the water. But that doesn't make water fluoridation a bad idea. Conspiracy theorists need to pick one mechanism (and then actually find out about it).
    - adrianwaj 12y ago
      No, the onus of proof is on the government that what they are doing to the water is good, or rather to provide a precise ingredients list of what they are adding to the water, where they are getting it from and how it is created... on a location-by-location basis, and at regular intervals. And that can be cross-checked by third parties if they should wish. If there's a conspiracy, it's the one regarding what is supposedly good for my health and teeth. Who says I need "fluoride" delivered to me in this manner? Why can't I opt-in or at least have the information at-hand to make a decision as to whether I want to avoid tap water? Every water bill should have a precise ingredients list of the "product" being supplied. Why should water be different from any other thing I buy to drink.. especially in such large quantities, and as an ingredient indirectly in so many other foods I eat. It should be labelled as such. And it will never be because the ingredients are toxic - the onus of proof is on the government to accurately label their product to prove me wrong (if that is their goal.) I can say anything I want, but I still don't need to prove or individually "find out" anything. I am not doing the tampering.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago

> Fluoride is a perfect example: too little and your bones are weak As far as I know there is zero biological requirement for fluoride. Fluoride can help mask systemic problems like mineral deficiency that lead to tooth decay, but nobody has ever had a cavity due to fluoride deficiency.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Same argument for shoes? Nobody ever hurt their foot because of shoe deficiency; it was the thorn that did it. I think its disingenuous to ignore the obvious benefits of hardening enamel, regardless of other health issues in our population.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  Shoes don't present a risk to health and intelligence. And shoes aren't a band aid for a serious underlying health problem. Tooth decay is not a natural consequence of sugar consumption or a lack of fluoride. Ever hear the expression "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth?" It alludes to the fact that tooth decay is a clear sign of serious deficiencies. That fluoride substitution reactions can mask the symptom is interesting but probably not a great public health approach.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    To be pedantic, you can argue that shoes do all that. Soft weak feet and vitamin D deficiency are issues exacerbated by shoes. Many shoes are designed solely as band aids for foot problems. And helping teeth stay healthy in the presence of deficiencies is NOT a public health problem; no doctor is looking at your teeth like he looks at a horse, to diagnose your health. Yet tooth problems lead to diet problems lead to more health problems. Fluoride is easily arguably a public health benefit, because it Mitigates symptoms of other issues.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]