Pesticide Residues on Food Are Not Harmful to Health

Organic food by definition is food grown without the use of pesticides and it is this fact which is organic food's principal selling point. Consumers often site the absence of pesticides as the overriding reason for buying organic food. Other reasons also include a supposed nutritional benefit and that organic farming is perceived as being less harmful to the environment.

What is assumed by producers and consumers alike is that the absence of pesticide residue on food somehow renders such food safer than its non-organic counterpart and by implication makes organic food healthier. However, there is not one shred of evidence that links pesticide residues on food to ill health. For example there is no disease associated with pesticide food residues and no person has ever died from ingesting food contaminated by such residues.

It is commonly assumed that pesticide residues are a cause of cancer but no link whatsoever has been established. The World Health Organization makes no link and shows that overall cancer rates in the developed world, except lung cancer, are either in decline or remain at a steady level. It must also be remembered that longevity in western nations has dramatically improved and this increase can be associated in part with intensive farming and the arrival of pesticides. This has caused the mass production of cheap nutritious food.

However, pesticides are indeed poisons which is why they so employed. But why is that they exert a poisonous effect at high concentrations but not when found as minute residue amounts on food? The reason for this can found in a discovery made by Paracelsus, a 15th century Italian medic, who is rightly regarded as the father of pharmacology/toxicology. He made the startling discovery that it's the dose that determines the poison and not necessarily the poison itself. This means that only at a sufficiently high dose does a substance exert a poisonous effect whilst at a low dose it is perfectly safe. A comparison can be made with alcohol which at high levels can be a very poisonous and toxic substance, hence the phrase '˜being intoxicated'. A person can take a sip of wine with no untoward affect whatsoever but if they drank a bottle of pure alcohol it is highly likely that they would die. It is the dose of the alcohol that is the poison and not the alcohol itself. It is the dose that determines the lethality; a low dose has no affect whilst a high one is fatal. Another example would be where a person inhales once on a cigarette absorbing only a small amount of nicotine with no ill health affects, but if they ate a bar of nicotine they would die a very painful convulsing death. Once again it is the dose that determines lethality and not the poison itself.

The same thinking can be applied to pesticides; at high doses (crop spraying) pesticides can be dangerous to humans acting as a poison whilst at the very low doses found on food (residues) pesticides are completely safe. Remembering Paracelsus, the dose is the poison. This is borne out by the complete lack of medical evidence that supports any link whatsoever between pesticide residues and ill health.

If this is viewed in terms of physiology then the dose effect can be explained more clearly. The body is designed to deal with poisons in basically three ways; enzymes (mainly from the liver) which break down the poison, antibodies which bind with the poison to render it harmless and the kidneys which excrete it removing it from the body. If the dose of the poison, in this case pesticide residues on food, is small then the body can easily deal with the low amount of pesticide with the systems described. However, if the dose is large enough then the high concentration of pesticide will swamp the body's defensive systems and the pesticide will have its deleterious and possibly fatal effects.

It must also be remembered that none of the professional organizations such as the UK's Food Standards Agency, the US's EPA or the very prestigious World Health Organization state any concern over pesticide residues on food or that organic food is any way superior to non-organic food. However, despite the complete lack of evidence supporting the claim that pesticide residues are harmful to health the organic food lobby, such as the UK's Soil Association and the US's Organic Trade Association continue to strongly imply a link. This is highly misleading. They quote many scientific studies which show a clear link between spraying pesticides (high concentrations) and human ill health. This is then used to imply that the same effect is relevant for residues i.e. for small amounts, a sort or guilt by association. But remember Paracelsus that it is the dose that is the poison and high concentrations of pesticide in spraying does pose a real threat to human health which is why their use is recommended only with the proper protective measures. But the low doses as found on food are not harmful. The commercial organic food lobby groups are trying to imply an equivalence between the two but this is simply not true. These organizations must be aware of Paracelsus and that there is no evidence linking pesticide residues on food and ill health but they deliberately chose to ignore these facts. If this is the case then they are guilty of misleading the public with false and unsupported claims. But after all what does one expect from such a commercial lobby group whose only aim is to increase the sales of its product. In effect pesticide residues on food are not harmful to health. Therefore, organic food is sold on nothing more than a lie.