The various conditions that have been attributed to these chemicals by the food faddists bear no relationship to any of the known effects of the pesticides. There have been sufficient cases of self-induced organophosphate poisoning to recognise the symptoms of poisoning (pesticides are a common form of suicide in Third World countries). It starts with excessive salivation and lachrymation and is invariably followed by painful gut cramps and an uncontrollable twitching of the muscles. Pesticides are not commonly associated with any allergic conditions.
Virtually all the chemical pesticide residue that occurs in food is found on the outside of fruit and vegetables and is easily washed off. If the choice has to be made between pest-infected food, food exposed to bacterial pathogens and minute harmless amounts of pesticide, then to choose not to use them is the equivalent of a patient with pneumonia refusing antibiotics in favour of leeches and bleeding.
The inconsistent approach of the advocates of organic food becomes apparent when one considers organic eggs. These have to come from organically reared chickens. To be an organically reared chicken, the bird has to eat 80 per cent organic food for six weeks. No effort is made to control the other 20 per cent, which may contain potential carcinogens or toxic material. At the end of that time, any eggs it lays will be deemed organic and therefore much more expensive. Organic eggs and chickens should not be confused with free-range chickens, which can roam more freely and eat whatever they like. Organic chickens are not kept in battery cages. To conform with the organic requirements, they must be allowed 1 square metre of space per 25 lb of chicken.
There are many mysteries about what constitutes organic food. If a banana is squashed and its juice extracted to produce ‘banana flavouring’, it can be analysed and shown to be the chemical amyl acetate. However, if one produces amyl acetate by adding vinegar to amyl alcohol it cannot be called ‘organic’. It is the same chemical, it tastes the same, it smells the same but it is not natural and it is therefore presumed to be bad. The same logic suggests that acetic acid is somehow different from the acid in vinegar, or citric acid from that of lemon-juice extract.
It has been suggested that prepackaged, cleaned lettuce is dangerous, as it is washed in a solution containing chlorine. The initiates of this scare fail to point out that the amount of chlorine residue in the product is less than that found in most swimming-pool water and in some drinking water.
A walk around the organic shelves of a supermarket leaves one amazed at the gullibility of its patrons. The produce is not particularly inviting in its appearance, and its taste is, for the most part, identical to that of the normal produce. A ten-year, obsessively controlled trial of foods grown in similar positions, on the Boarded Farm study in Essex, compared organically grown crops with those produced by conventional farming, using integrated farm management. The study revealed that the best results, judged by soil quality, effect on bird life, biodiversity and yield, came from the integrated farm management fields. Blind tasting of the crops from these studies failed to reveal any consistent difference between organic and nonorganic produce. This is hardly surprising, since taste is largely a result of the genetic makeup of the particular strain of the crop that was planted, the time it has spent maturing before being picked and the climatic conditions during its growth.
Although most produce, be it organic or not, tastes better when freshly picked, the use of preservatives can prolong the freshness of some produce. Some preservatives are available for use in organic foods but they are seldom used in organic vegetables and fruits, which consequently have a short shelf life – as evidenced by wilting lettuces and bendy cucumbers.
Today, the zealots of the cult of organic food are making ever more irrational inroads into the way we live. They are promoting organic clothing and toiletries with the implied assurance that these are somehow less likely to cause allergies and skin disease. There is no evidence to support this claim, which plays on the fears of parents with children who suffer from skin allergies.
So why do people pay up to 40 per cent more for organic products? Is it a cynical confidence trick to exploit consumer ignorance? Is it the belief that, should little Johnny turn out to have allergies/asthma/autism or a brain tumour, this might have been prevented if he had been brought up on organic food and worn pyjamas made from organic cotton? Or is it simply a matter of choice? It is difficult to believe that the proponents of organic produce are all part of an evil conspiracy to defraud the public, although they often use unworthy, unscientific scare tactics, conjuring up all sorts of disasters to frighten the nonbelievers. Most just seem to be victims of their own propaganda, who yearn after bygone days when the sun shone all the time.
However, there is another side to the story. The food industry has to accept some of the blame. It has too often put cost before quality, marketed fruit picked before it has had time to ripen and mature on the tree, and encouraged the production of food that looks good on the supermarket shelf rather than produce that tastes good when eaten. I believe that our memories of apples picked straight from the tree, tasting crisp and juicy, of strawberries that were sweet and succulent and peas that one could not resist eating raw have some factual basis. It is our desire to get back to the days of real, fresh, ripe fruit and vegetables that has encouraged the spurious market for organic food.
BY MALCOLM KENDRICK
‘For every complicated problem there is a solution that is simple, direct, understandable, and wrong.’
H L MENCKEN
THE MYTH: A high cholesterol intake causes heart disease.
THE FACT: Cholesterol levels are not affected by cholesterol intake, and in any case there is no evidence to suggest that cholesterol and heart disease are linked.
If you eat too much cholesterol, or saturated fat, your blood cholesterol will rise to dangerous levels. Excess cholesterol will then seep through your artery walls causing thickenings (plaques), which will eventually block blood flow in vital arteries, resulting in heart attacks and strokes.
Scientific hypotheses don’t get much simpler than this, the cholesterol, or diet-heart hypothesis, which has broken free from the ivory towers of academia to impact with massive force on society.
It has driven a widespread change in the type of food we are told to eat, and consequently the food that lines the supermarket shelves. Many people view bacon and eggs as a dangerous killer, butter is shunned, and a multibillion-pound industry has sprung up providing ‘healthy’ low-fat alternatives.
At the same time, millions of people are prescribed statins to lower cholesterol levels, and each new set of guidelines suggests ever more lowering of cholesterol is needed. When it comes to explaining what causes heart disease, the cholesterol hypothesis reigns supreme.
Landmarks in the development of the cholesterol hypothesis
1850s: Rudolf Virchow notes the presence of cholesterol in atherosclerotic plaques. Suggests excess cholesterol in the bloodstream may be the cause.
Early 1900s: Ashoff feeds rabbits fat and cholesterol, notes the development of atheroma.
1912: First heart attack described by Herrick.
1940s: Epidemic of heart disease hits USA, interest in the area explodes. Many researchers blame high fat/cholesterol diet.
1948: