Keep being blind to the dangers of synthetic pesticides at your own peril. I’m not going to argue. This is an issue where people on here have their minds made up, already. Calling the purchase of non conventional foods a scam is irresponsible. It is illegal to conduct a study on human effects of synthetic pesticide exposure because it is unethical to intentionally expose humans to pesticides. All evidence suggests that a significant percentage of synthetic pesticides cause neurological and carcinogenic damage to humans. Again, setting a safe exposure level is unethical because you can’t conduct the necessary tests. Eat whatever type of food you desire. It is repugnant however, to judge those who wish to err on the side of caution, given the mounds of evidence of links.
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2014/6/ehp.1307044.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9498903/
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health/natural-health/pesticides/index.htm
Not sure who you are saying is judging...
You call the people here condemning organica irresponsible, but actually your post is totally irresponsible because you misinterpret and misuse data. Please read my entire response before making up your mind.
My main point is that people should make data informed decisions. The data indicates a lot of uncertainty. This is actually what the links you provided indicate.
Your first link describes toxicity to people who live neear where pesticides are used. But this is different than eating pesticide treated foods. Very different.
Your second link states that although pesticides are strongly linked to cancers/etc in lab animals, there is insufficient data to consider it causal in humans. Im not trying to argue pesticides dont cause these things in humans, but we should speak accurately about the data. Furthermore, there again is a difference between pesticide exposure in the lab and eating it in food. Lastly, your link is only a link to the abstract. Did you only read the abstract before using this in your argument?
Your third link, the consumers report one. This provides a nice public friendly overview. It also acknowledges insufficient data to draw strong quantitave conclusions on risk.
My point here is not to say that it is a bad idea to avoid conventional produce. I actually support this on the whole, depnding on your financial situation. The point, rather, is make people like you understood that while there is a risk, it is a poorly understood risk. Remember, the dose makes the poison. Its not whether or not there are pesticides in foods. Its which ones, and at what concentration. And with that said, scientists have not clearly determined at what concentrations pesticides in foods cause problems. And because this is the MMM forum which is very budget conscious, and people here understand how important it is to eat vegetables, people here are going to support eating vegetables over eating organic vegetables. It is a very logical choice, because data corrrelations between the benefits of eating vegetables are strong, whereas the data correlations between pesticide treated food and cancer are weak (at this time). If the data situation improves, im sure ths forum would completly support organic food. But until then, the risk in buying organic food is that it is expensive and wasteful. Therefore, only when you have extra funds available does it make sense to buy organic. The consequences are potentially high, but the degree of uncertainy is quite high at this time. It is up to the individual to decide where to draw the line, but we should be able to come to agreements on the data (and if not, that is what shouldk be discussed.)
In short, you are misrespresenting the data. There are not mounds of data linking consumption of conventional foods to cancer. Rather, there are strong links between pesticides and cancer. These are different things, and you are being irresponsible by not making this the topic of discussion while meanwhile calling others irresponsible.
