Read on Twitter
No benefit seems extreme and unlikely. Organic produce, on average, has higher phytochemical concentrations and less synthetic pesticides. 1/n https://twitter.com/DBelardoMD/status/1297214355394576384
The largest meta-analysis to date, aggregating data from 343 studies around the world, found that organic crops had 18–69% greater concentrations of specific phytochemical compounds than conventional crops. 2/n https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24968103/
While you can debate the practical value of such a finding, it's notable that a systematic review of human clinical trials reported improvements in cognition after anthocyanin-rich food consumption (like blueberries). 3/n https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27730693/
You could very well experience these cognitive benefits with a fraction of the food if opting for organic over conventional. That seems pretty meaningful, especially since many phytochemicals haven't been investigated in this manner. 4/n
Therefore, there could be numerous benefits we are simply unaware of from eating organic produce over conventional. Or maybe not. We don't know, but what evidence we do have points in the direction of a benefit. 5/n
As for pesticides, health outcomes haven't been causally assessed outside of allergies and infections, at least based on this systematic review. So, making conclusions is a pure fallacy of ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). 6/n https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22944875/
But organic uses pesticides too!
Sure, but they are of far less toxicological concern than their synthetic counterparts because they're part of the human diet (e.g., potassium bicarbonate and coconut soap) or are used in pest traps rather than being applied directly. 7/n
Sure, but they are of far less toxicological concern than their synthetic counterparts because they're part of the human diet (e.g., potassium bicarbonate and coconut soap) or are used in pest traps rather than being applied directly. 7/n
Plus, organic farming generally relies on crop rotation, biological control through employing natural enemies of pests, and hygiene practices rather than pesticides. 8/n https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26331771/
But the amount of pesticides is so small it doesn't matter!
Disagree. Current safety limits are based on an outdated model of toxicology that assumes all chemicals follow a monotonic, or linear, dose-response relationship. 9/n
Disagree. Current safety limits are based on an outdated model of toxicology that assumes all chemicals follow a monotonic, or linear, dose-response relationship. 9/n
Basically, a monotonic relationship assumes that higher exposure to a chemical leads to greater health effects than lower exposure. It’s easily captured in the colloquialism the dose makes the poison. 10/n
Accordingly, most toxicology testing looks at very high exposure levels to predict consequences of much lower doses and to establish safety limits. The issue here is that many chemicals don’t follow this assumed monotonic dose-response relationship. 11/n
Rather, numerous experiments with chemicals that act via hormonal mechanisms have shown that it is very common for the dose-response curve to be non-monotonic and have notable health effects at low doses below current safety limits. 12/n
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22419778/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22419778/
We've seen low-dose effects with
Atrazine
BPA
DDT
Dioxin
Methyl-paraben
Parathion
PCBs
Perchlorates
Triclosan
And more research continues to find harmful low-dose effects of other synthetic pesticides at currently accepted "safe" levels. 13/n
Atrazine
BPA
DDT
Dioxin
Methyl-paraben
Parathion
PCBs
Perchlorates
Triclosan
And more research continues to find harmful low-dose effects of other synthetic pesticides at currently accepted "safe" levels. 13/n
The Endocrine Society published a position stand in 2015 that makes these same arguments — that various persistent organic pollutants and synthetic pesticides have low-dose effects that could be especially problematic for vulnerable populations. 14/n https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26544531/
So, the lower synthetic pesticide levels on organic plants could be a health advantage based on yet unknown consequences of low-dose effects. Or not; we don't know how many chemicals have these low-dose effects. 15/n
Certainly, though, this evidence clearly refutes the notion that there is NO advantage to eating organic crops. This data points in the direction of a potential benefit. Precautionary principle until more research is conducted. 16/n
Does this mean eat organic or nothing at all? Of course not. Eating plants is better than not eating plants. But we need to acknowledge the potential for harm given the lack of investigation into low-dose effects of many pesticides. 17/end
