Or if you live close to a golf course. Bottom line is we don't need pesticides for a lot of the things we think we need them for. No amount of perfectly manicured lawns are worth kids getting cancer. It is better to try to take responsibility for the food you eat, and the impact it has on you, and on other people. Organic food is a good way to take that responsibility. Admittedly, it is more expensive, though the prices are getting more reasonable with the ever-expanding number of people opting to buy organic produce and meats. With more people purchasing it, more producers will be motivated to adopt organic growing methods. Or we could pretend that pumping ever-more millions of tons of pesticides into the water supply and atmosphere doesn't have entirely predictable results. Maybe not for the Vancouver apple eater, but for humans as a whole, and the planet that sustains us.

Serching Google does not give an accurate picture of risk. There are no cancer clusters in the medical literature arising from domestic, outdoor exposure. I worry that this more about this being about the promoting of "organic" and the financial benefit accruing to that sector of the food industry - to the detriment of Canadians who cannot afford it, thereby reducing their consumption of fruits and vegatables. This is the WRONG prescription for health and cancer prevention. (Except for the members of the OMA).

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F0071FFB3C5C0C728DDDAD0894DC404482 The pesticide issue is not black or white. A sobering article on the proposed use of DDT and malaria appeared in the NY Times Sunday Magazine a couple of weeks ago. The coordinates above will take you there. Most will probably not know what DDT is but then I am old enough to remember Flit.

who is this barbara mclintock? all her articles including this one sound like she is just another apologist for the radical right and corporate policies!

I've enjoyed all of Barbara's pieces up until now thoroughly. Though this one raises some valid points about whether 'ordinary' people - those not employed directly with pesticide application - should panic about pesticides in their food, but I need to comment on some of the statements made. My main problem with McLintock's piece is the following statement: "More indirectly, the use of pesticides to produce cheaper, more accessible fruits and vegetables over-all produces a significant health benefit." It's incredibly simplistic to say that using pesticides gives us cheaper produce. I expect better research and in-depth reasoning from Barbara McLintock. Yes, people overall should eat more veggies and fruit, whether organic or conventional. No debate there. And fresh produce shouldn't only be accessible to those with money. But saying that the use of pesticides makes for cheaper produce is one of industrial agriculture's favourite arguments for the continued mode of pesticide laden, monoculture farming. The price of conventional produce is also very heavily affected by tax-payer supported subsidies, and by the competitive nature of global trade, which keeps farm-workers wages & profits low. I'm no expert, but I know that much. I myself buy a mix of 'conventional' and organic, mostly to keep costs down. If I had the budget, I would probably switch to buying as much organic as possible, not because of paranoia about ingesting pesticides, but because I think we need to support the growth of organic agriculture. Why use pesticides if we don't need to?

What gardener said. I too buy a mix, and would buy more organic if I could afford it. Even if food I eat won't give me cancer, there is a chance it will give someone else cancer. That is also partly my responsibility.

With all due respect to those who moan about the high price of organic produce, I offer you a simple test. Buy your produce organically one week and with pesticides the next. See how much you save on the exact same items, same weight etc. Depending on the size of your family, you might save from $5-15 per week by eating chemical laden produce. Now buy all the other stuff like the meat and cheese and milk and cereal and chips and crackers etc. This is where your money goes!! And what about the pop, the latte's, the burgers, the convenience eating? It's pound wise and penny foolish not to eat organic fruits and vegetables. And like the gardener said, we need to support those people who don't pollute our environment with all these chemicals. Yea, that also means your water supply. What is the long term price for not supporting chemical free farming?

One pesticide laden apple does seem harmless. But what about the year after year cumulative effect of every mouthful of pesticide laden fruit, vegetable. milk, chicken, turkey, beef, pork on young children's health. Non-organic fowl and meat eat pesticide laden food also. On one hand we yell about government's need to increase public money for health care, and on the other we say farmers should raise pesticide/growth-hormone/anti-biotic-laden food because it is cheaper to eat. Our individual ability to compartmentalize our lives - put food in one compartment; put health in a separate compartment unrelated to food; put our tax dollars in another compartment unrelated to food subsidies, health problems, education problems etc etc - is illogical beyond belief. Gotta laugh.

The human body takes things in and has mechanisms to get rid of them. It is not a one way street, otherwise we all would have a very short lifespan. The sad thing is the disappointment demonstated when the "smoking gun" on the pesticide issue is shown to be shooting blanks.

What a B.S. article! I can't believe you published this article on the tyee... I am disappointed.

Recent research shows significant ill effects from real life, ordinary person exposures. This article:http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2004/6774/abstract.html in the EPA's monthly journal Environmental Health Perspectives gives a good antidote to the idea that the pesticide scare is overblown.

Here's an idea. Wash your produce before you eat it. And I'm from the Fraser Valley, "pesticide central." I have never heard of, seen or encountered anyone who developed health problems because of chemical pesticides. There haven't been any "cancer clusters." No little children have become sick and died here because of pesticides. And when it comes to choosing my produce from the store, I'll take the stuff that's been kept healthy with chemicals rather than the wilting, sickly-looking stuff that passed for organic.

Want to know how much people know about pesticides? Four years ago West vancouverites did not allow BT to be sprayed "in my back Yard" to control the spread of the gypsy moth infestation. Later on that same summer, an insecticide was liberally applied on the whole Fraser valley without even a whimper of protest. The insecticide was used to control a misquito outbreak and is approx a zillion times more toxic, persistent, and non specific as compared to BT. And to GJW..your children and produce may look good but have checked your chickens lately.

This study is not trying to promote an "organic" way of life (as a researcher in the life sciences - I find the now common use of the word "organic" highly amusing - I dare someone to find an inorganic apple out there). Like radiation, poisons (such as pesticides) have a cumulative affect - with susceptibility to cancer being conferred to how many "blows" to your DNA (or genetic makeup) you can take. There is absolutely no need to overuse such harsh pesticides (by definition - they are made to kill organisms - the pestiness of life is a relative term - and more to do with the size of the organism for the lethal dose for effectiveness - which is why the kids are in greater peril). Pesticides don't disappear after use - they leach into the ground, get into the water system, and significantly pollute the drinking water of communities. It is absolute ignorance to criticise the study for being retrospective in nature. It would be unethical to produce a controlled human study - especially after the clear relationship between exposure and illness - why take the risk? Not everyone who smokes 6 packs a day develops cancer within the year - but you certainly increase your chances of getting the painfully lethal disease by 75% sooner than would be appreciated if you take up the self-abuse. It is time to set our priorities straight or else stop complaining so much about the burden of our health care costs.

McLintock's article uses juvenile arguments and is extremely poorly researched. It is common practice for scientists to conduct such "meta-studies" and thereby re-assess all previous studies in a specific area of research -- and often such meta-studies are even better than the initial studies because the investigators can re-visit research with an unbiassed eye and look at broader trends over larger groups of people. In addition, a 2003 auditor general's investigation into Health Canada's procedures for approving and regulating pesticides found widespread use of "ad hoc" methods and poor research that left the safety of any and all pesticides in Canada in doubt. (It's online at the AG's website.) So from where does Mclintock derive her vacuous confidence in their safety? Furthermore, countless studies have shown that "organic" farming can usually equal or even better most conventional farming for productivity, and that pesticides and fertilizers have become merely the last line of defense for soil-depleted conventional farms.

“As crude a weapon as the cave man’s club, the chemical barrage has been hurled against the fabric of life.” –Rachel Carson, Silent Spring; ... Unfortunatly, this was only the second article I read at Tyee, and it's left me wondering whether I should bother to read anything else you have felt fit to include. Fortunatly, I read something by Matt Hern first and I was impressed but, after reading this article I won't be recommending your site to anyone yet.

http://www.foodnews.org/

Hey Doc Martin, you say that people in your small town get cancer because of your proximity to the farmers feilds and their pesticide use. How do you know thats what causes the cancer, it is people like you, who make speculation, that sends this scare to people, that is absolutely not proven. I have worked at a company the last two summers who does pesticide applications. The company is over 25 years old, and no employees who apply these pesticides daily have ever got cancer, or whatever illnesses you claim occur. I think if someone was going to get sick, it would be the front line workers. Maybe people should have some justification for the ridiculous comments you make.