DEAR DR. BLONZ: A recent letter asked about eating corn -- the writer, also from Tulsa, related a fear of eating corn stemming from some "doctor videos" they had seen. You replied that eating corn isn't a problem. I would like to share my experience.
In my teens, in the 1950s, I worked in the Iowa cornfields detasseling corn. Unknown to the average layperson, the fields were full of pesticides and herbicides, primarily DDT, dioxins and others. These chemicals persist in the soil for many years. We ate a lot of sweetcorn and popcorn.
Then in my 60s, I was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The doctors stated that it is a known scientific fact that non-Hodgkin lymphoma is one of the cancers caused by pesticides and other chemicals used in farming. Consequently, I now only eat organic corn products, and try to stick to organic with other foods whenever possible. Perhaps wise advice for anyone. -- S.W. Tulsa, Oklahoma
DEAR S.W.: My regards for sharing your unfortunate experiences. We have learned much since the 1962 publication of "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson helped identify and ban DDT and other pesticides. Public concern about pesticides typically focuses on potential dangers from eating the foods grown with their use -- but what about the workers who apply such chemicals? And what of our environment, which becomes the chemicals' final resting place?
America's obsession with perfect-looking produce is one of the key factors behind the continued demand for pesticides. In a report entitled "Alternative Agriculture" (available at b.link/9fz4gr), the National Academy of Sciences detailed how the food industry encourages the use of pesticides solely to maintain high cosmetic standards. Surveys about citrus fruits conducted by Public Voice and by the American Farm Bureau Federation found that, in some cases, over half of pesticides are used for cosmetic reasons, such as preventing minor external blemishes that have nothing to do with the taste or nutrition of the fruit.
Many health experts place the hazards from pesticides well behind other dangers in our food supply, such as bacterial contamination and naturally occurring toxins. They say that the major risks in our food supply are placed there by nature, not technology.
However, numerous unanswered questions remain. For example, there is no practical way of measuring how, or if, an amount of residue deemed safe today might affect your health down the road. We also have no way of judging the effects of residues in combination with each other, or what happens when pesticide exposure occurs in conjunction with other health problems or medications. That may be why, despite assurances, surveys reveal that American consumers continue to be wary.
There are alternatives to the continued use of pesticides. One, as you correctly point out, involves organic agriculture. Organically grown crops, which generally cost more to produce than most conventional foods, are raised without synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides, fertilizers, animal feed additives or growth regulators.
A reasonable bottom line: There's little question that it's better to eat conventionally grown produce than not to eat fruits and vegetables at all. Our produce market is not a hazardous place where we need to fear every bite. Yet this does not justify blind support for the use of unnecessary synthetic pesticides.
We should eat as though our life depends on it, and at the same time, we need to be aware of the environmental impact of our food choices.
Send questions to: "On Nutrition," Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.