Think your supermarket 'Organic' vegetables are pesticide free?

[DumbFalang]

Think again. Check out this page (in Thai) on the levels of pesticide residue found on vegetables being sold in Thai supermarkets as 'Organic'....

http://www.thaipan.org/node/831

I've been growing all my own vegetables for a couple of years now and this report is a stern reminder as to why I should continue to do so. Perhaps you should too?

[aneliane]

There is no such thing as organic anymore.

Even the veggies you grow yourself.

They just have less chemicals.

[attrayant]

That would be great if we could all have the time and money needed to plant, grow and manage our own food supply. Unfortunately it's just not feasible for the vast majority of people. And if you're determined not to use any pesticides whatsoever, be prepared to lose 50-80% of your crop to pests.

And this report should not be surprising to anyone. I know there is a popular misconception that "organic" produce means no pesticides were used, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Pesticides may be used as long as they are "naturally derived". They may still be synthesized, but their formulations should be based on naturally occurring compounds. By this standard, aspirin is "all natural" because its base formula and active ingredient is derived from willow bark, even though it's 100% synthesized in a lab. So the "all natural" thing is a massive joke, really.

What is worse, pesticides that are permitted in organic farming (such as rotenone and copper sulfate) often have higher acute toxicity profiles than their synthetic counterparts. They're also less effective and tend to wash away when it rains, so they need to be applied more often and/or in greater amounts resulting in increased pesticide use.

[Caveat to the above: I am speaking to the situation in more developed countries. However I know that most countries follow western standards so that their produce meets import safety standards of the western countries]

[kannot]

"organic"= 100% BS

[dick dasterdly]

Few would prefer to buy food full of pesticides and other chemicals, but growing your own veg is a far from easy option for those of us living in areas where the soil is poor and v dry.

[GuestHouse]

The report is concerned with food safety across two 'quality' standards, the Government's 'Q' standard and claimed 'Organic' standards. The government's 'Q' standard claims to meet international standards, while there is no independant oversight of 'Organic' certificatiin in Thailand and tge term 'Organic' has no regulatiry standing in Thailand.

What the report findings indicate is significant failings in both certifications, but that the un regulated 'Organic' certification still manages to outperform the government's 'Q' certification.

The report is also evidence of the positive part the non government 'Organic' lobby plays in monitoring and publicising concerns across the whole of the food chain.

The message is clear, the regulation of food safety in Thailand is failing. This will not come as a suprise to anyone who's lived for any time in Thailand.

What is also clear is how eager some are to jump on this news as an argument against 'Organic' food. The data from the study indicates the probability of food in Thailand that is commercially marketted as 'Organic' is, even given the clear evidence of labelling fraud, less likely to be contaminted with toxic chemicals than 'Q' certified food.

So many thanks to Thai-Pan.org for investigating and publicising this issue.

---

To counter claims of what is and is not organic made above.

I've spent the past week visiting a number of families and individuals here in the north of Thailand who are growing their own organic food.

Their definition of 'Organic' = 'No chemicals'.

Rotating crops, using their own compost made from garden waist, keeping weeds down by hoeing, keeping insects down with chickens.

What impresses me is the significant increase in interest since our meetings of last year amongst ordinary Thai people and the number of land plots being used by families to grow their own food.

Our own program which has 22 families taking part has in excess of 40 families on the waiting list for a plot of land to organically farm with us.

Organic is growing -pun intended.

Edited May 5, 2016 by GuestHouse

[attrayant]

Their definition of 'Organic' = 'No chemicals'.

I trust you'll agree that this definition lacks certain statutory rigor. Water is a chemical; is that also disallowed? You may think I'm being flippant but to prove a point - since everything is a chemical, how can a statement like "no chemicals" be meaningful or useful?

[GuestHouse]

"organic"= 100% BS

Keep telling youself that if it comforts you.

I've just had a sald for lunch all the ingediants of which where complely home grown with nothing added to the growing other than home made compost and water.

[GuestHouse]

Their definition of 'Organic' = 'No chemicals'.

I trust you'll agree that this definition lacks certain statutory rigor. Water is a chemical; is that also disallowed? You may think I'm being flippant but to prove a point - since everything is a chemical, how can a statement like "no chemicals" be meaningful or useful?

Is that toxic water you are referring too or simply the pedentry you wish to employ to poison the discussion?

[kannot]

"organic"= 100% BS

Keep telling youself that if it comforts you.

I've just had a sald for lunch all the ingediants of which where complely home grown with nothing added to the growing other than home made compost and water.

I grow my own using water from a deep well thats been tested to see whats in it in a BKK lab (5k baht to test) I doubt any land in Thailand is pesticide free as the amount they flog round here and pump onto the land is enormous and run off to gawd knows where but no doubt the water table aint exactly clean and free of junk..

The wells 85metres deep water is filtered thru the rock here which is a sandstone by the looks of things

Too often "organic" means ferk all except a higher price.

Here want one of my organic Mangos ready soon not sure if Keit or Osteen mango?............ yes this really is mine not a library pic and Dwarf Cavendish Bananas which I hear are under threat now........I admit I do pee on em sometimes, but hey its organic

Edited May 5, 2016 by kannot

[kannot]

"organic"= 100% BS

Keep telling youself that if it comforts you.

I've just had a sald for lunch all the ingediants of which where complely home grown with nothing added to the growing other than home made compost and water.

Did u have a drop of Vino with that too GH as your spellings a bit "off" today?

[KittenKong]

Does anyone really have confidence in anything that they are sold in Thailand?

[kannot]

Does anyone really have confidence in anything that they are sold in Thailand?

I dont anywhere unless there is some consumer group with clout to ferk em up real bad if they mislead you.

[attrayant]

Their definition of 'Organic' = 'No chemicals'.

I trust you'll agree that this definition lacks certain statutory rigor. Water is a chemical; is that also disallowed? You may think I'm being flippant but to prove a point - since everything is a chemical, how can a statement like "no chemicals" be meaningful or useful?

Is that toxic water you are referring too or simply the pedentry you wish to employ to poison the discussion?

Water is not toxic. By claiming that something is free of chemicals and then, in the very next breath, stating you use compost and water (both of which are chemical compounds), it's YOU who are clearly engaging in pedantry.

It just occurred to me that maybe you're being totally serious and you really don't think that water is a chemical. In that case this is your lucky day as you're about to learn something. Here is the chemical profile for water on PubChem.

If, on the other hand, you're being facetious, then your contributions to this thread won't be of much value if you insist on using imprecise terms.

Edited May 5, 2016 by attrayant

[GuestHouse]

Attarat,

I'd gladly let you choose any the 'chemicals' I feed my vegitbles from my compost heap into a glass of water and drink it. So come on, over to my compost heap and spoon some of it into a glass for me!

If you'll let me choose any of the agrichemicsls Monsanto produce into a glass of water for you to drink.

(Of course I except you are worried about the chemical composition of water, do let's make that a glass of Evian)

Edited May 5, 2016 by GuestHouse

[GuestHouse]

Does anyone really have confidence in anything that they are sold in Thailand?

I dont anywhere unless there is some consumer group with clout to ferk em up real bad if they mislead you.

Hey look Thai-PAN.org have just lifted the lid on the toxic chemicals in Thai vegetables..

... Hey look who is trying to trash their report !!!

Edited May 5, 2016 by GuestHouse

[vaultdweller0013]

Their definition of 'Organic' = 'No chemicals'.

I trust you'll agree that this definition lacks certain statutory rigor. Water is a chemical; is that also disallowed? You may think I'm being flippant but to prove a point - since everything is a chemical, how can a statement like "no chemicals" be meaningful or useful?

A less ridiculous example is "organic" or uncured bacon. Did you know that you can use celery instead of artificially synthesized nitrates. The reason this works is that celery is high is nitrates. So, in the end, the same chemical is curing the bacon. Ironically, the non-organic process is probably better because you can control the quantities of the nitrates better so that the absolute minimum amount required to prevent the culture of bacteria is used. Whereas with natural sources of nitrates, you would need to be more conservative and use more because you don't know exact how much is in the source and exactly how it will break down during the curing process, unless you are willing to risk contamination of the meat.

The point being that it depends on the underlying chemical process that is happening. If the organic alternative is just replacing the source of the chemicals, it doesn't matter. However, if the organic alternative is a fundamentally different process, it can be good.

[kannot]

Does anyone really have confidence in anything that they are sold in Thailand?

I dont anywhere unless there is some consumer group with clout to ferk em up real bad if they mislead you.

Hey look Thai-PAN.org have just lifted the lid on the toxic chemicals in Thai vegetables..

... Hey look who is trying to trash their report !!!

and the "clout"?

[dick dasterdly]

Their definition of 'Organic' = 'No chemicals'.

I trust you'll agree that this definition lacks certain statutory rigor. Water is a chemical; is that also disallowed? You may think I'm being flippant but to prove a point - since everything is a chemical, how can a statement like "no chemicals" be meaningful or useful?

A less ridiculous example is "organic" or uncured bacon. Did you know that you can use celery instead of artificially synthesized nitrates. The reason this works is that celery is high is nitrates. So, in the end, the same chemical is curing the bacon. Ironically, the non-organic process is probably better because you can control the quantities of the nitrates better so that the absolute minimum amount required to prevent the culture of bacteria is used. Whereas with natural sources of nitrates, you would need to be more conservative and use more because you don't know exact how much is in the source and exactly how it will break down during the curing process, unless you are willing to risk contamination of the meat.

The point being that it depends on the underlying chemical process that is happening. If the organic alternative is just replacing the source of the chemicals, it doesn't matter. However, if the organic alternative is a fundamentally different process, it can be good.

I'm assuming that organic pork/bacon will not have been battery farmed?

That's the only definition that matters to me nowadays, as I doubt that organic labels (e.g. no chemicals/hormones etc.) can be trusted.

[spidermike007]

The report is concerned with food safety across two 'quality' standards, the Government's 'Q' standard and claimed 'Organic' standards. The government's 'Q' standard claims to meet international standards, while there is no independant oversight of 'Organic' certificatiin in Thailand and tge term 'Organic' has no regulatiry standing in Thailand.

What the report findings indicate is significant failings in both certifications, but that the un regulated 'Organic' certification still manages to outperform the government's 'Q' certification.

The report is also evidence of the positive part the non government 'Organic' lobby plays in monitoring and publicising concerns across the whole of the food chain.

The message is clear, the regulation of food safety in Thailand is failing. This will not come as a suprise to anyone who's lived for any time in Thailand.

What is also clear is how eager some are to jump on this news as an argument against 'Organic' food. The data from the study indicates the probability of food in Thailand that is commercially marketted as 'Organic' is, even given the clear evidence of labelling fraud, less likely to be contaminted with toxic chemicals than 'Q' certified food.

So many thanks to Thai-Pan.org for investigating and publicising this issue.

---

To counter claims of what is and is not organic made above.

I've spent the past week visiting a number of families and individuals here in the north of Thailand who are growing their own organic food.

Their definition of 'Organic' = 'No chemicals'.

Rotating crops, using their own compost made from garden waist, keeping weeds down by hoeing, keeping insects down with chickens.

What impresses me is the significant increase in interest since our meetings of last year amongst ordinary Thai people and the number of land plots being used by families to grow their own food.

Our own program which has 22 families taking part has in excess of 40 families on the waiting list for a plot of land to organically farm with us.

Organic is growing -pun intended.

"The message is clear, the regulation of food safety in Thailand is failing. This will not come as a surprise to anyone who's lived for any time in Thailand".

​Would you not agree that the regulation of ALL public safety in Thailand is failing? Is there one single area, that can be pointed to as a success under this current regime?

Traffic safety is as horrendous as ever, public safety shows no signs of improving, and what is worse, is that the officials show no sign of concern. Policing remains as incompetent as it has ever been.

So, what is improving in this area? Please prove to me that I am wrong? I would love to see some signs that someone cares.

[GuestHouse]

^ I'm not at all sure why you believe it is up to me to prove anything to you.

You seem to agree with me that the regulation of food safety is failing in Thailand, other failings you percieve are surely the stuff of another thread.

[mogandave]

I think that generally "organic" is for suckers.

[dick dasterdly]

I think that generally "organic" is for suckers.

Personally, I seriously dislike my food being full of toxic chemicals and hormones - but everyone to their own.

Edit - and when it comes to meat, I find it horrifying that battery farming is tolerated. We're supposed to be civilised and empathetic <deleted>!

Edited May 8, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[attrayant]

Then you'd better avoid so-called "organic" produce (or go back and check out the OP if you've forgotten what this thread is all about.

I challenge you to show me a report showing a crop where enough pesticides were detected to qualify as being "full of" toxic chemicals. I can show you the most recent USDA Pesticide Data Program Summary which shows residual pesticide levels on nearly 11 thousand produce samples well below tolerance - often by several orders of magnitude. Out of that number, 38 exceeded tolerance but were still below the lowest observable adverse effect level. This report is done to arrive at a general "grade" for farmers to show whether or not they're applying pesticides properly. The grade for 2014 was A+. This suggests the farming & regulatory systems are working well. Of course this is with respect to the USA. This far all we've seen for Thailand is what's in the OP (and that's for "organic" produce).



Just for the uninitiated, pesticide tolerance levels are usually set at 1/100th of the no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL). For example - let's say that testing shows the lowest amount of Toxic Chemical X® that might cause an adverse event in a test subject is 1 gram. The tolerance will then be set at 1/100th of that amount, or 10 mg. The report shows that actual residues detected were two to three orders of magnitude lower than that, or about 10-100 micrograms or 1/100,000th the amount of the lowest observable adverse effect level. This is not the same as being "full of toxic chemicals".

And this thread is not about hormones but since you brought it up, nobody has found any problems there either. Estrogen is a natural growth hormone - that means every living thing has some in it. But people who are easily scared or lack a sense of perspective tend to react irrationally when they hear that implanted cattle have 46% more estrogen than non-implanted cattle. Wow that sounds like a lot right? The actual numbers are 1.3 micrograms for non-implanted cattle and 1.9 micrograms for implanted cattle. From that same University of Nebraska report:

...1.9 nanograms of estrogen in implanted beef seems miniscule when we consider that a child’s body produces around 50,000 nanograms of estrogen per day. An adult female (non-pregnant) will produce 480,000 nanograms of estrogen per day on its own.

The 1.9 nanograms of estrogen in implanted beef is also miniscule compared to 225 nanograms of estrogen in potatoes, 340 nanograms of estrogen in peas, 520 nanograms of estrogen in ice cream, 2,000 nanograms of estrogen in cabbage, 11,250 nanograms of estrogen in soy milk, and 170,000 nanograms of estrogen in soybean oil… all based on a 3 ounce serving size.

So let's try to maintain a sense of perspective about things being "full of" hormones.

[dick dasterdly]

Then you'd better avoid so-called "organic" produce (or go back and check out the OP if you've forgotten what this thread is all about.

I challenge you to show me a report showing a crop where enough pesticides were detected to qualify as being "full of" toxic chemicals. I can show you the most recent USDA Pesticide Data Program Summary which shows residual pesticide levels on nearly 11 thousand produce samples well below tolerance - often by several orders of magnitude. Out of that number, 38 exceeded tolerance but were still below the lowest observable adverse effect level. This report is done to arrive at a general "grade" for farmers to show whether or not they're applying pesticides properly. The grade for 2014 was A+. This suggests the farming & regulatory systems are working well. Of course this is with respect to the USA. This far all we've seen for Thailand is what's in the OP (and that's for "organic" produce).

usda report 2014.png

Just for the uninitiated, pesticide tolerance levels are usually set at 1/100th of the no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL). For example - let's say that testing shows the lowest amount of Toxic Chemical X® that might cause an adverse event in a test subject is 1 gram. The tolerance will then be set at 1/100th of that amount, or 10 mg. The report shows that actual residues detected were two to three orders of magnitude lower than that, or about 10-100 micrograms or 1/100,000th the amount of the lowest observable adverse effect level. This is not the same as being "full of toxic chemicals".

And this thread is not about hormones but since you brought it up, nobody has found any problems there either. Estrogen is a natural growth hormone - that means every living thing has some in it. But people who are easily scared or lack a sense of perspective tend to react irrationally when they hear that implanted cattle have 46% more estrogen than non-implanted cattle. Wow that sounds like a lot right? The actual numbers are 1.3 micrograms for non-implanted cattle and 1.9 micrograms for implanted cattle. From that same University of Nebraska report:

...1.9 nanograms of estrogen in implanted beef seems miniscule when we consider that a child’s body produces around 50,000 nanograms of estrogen per day. An adult female (non-pregnant) will produce 480,000 nanograms of estrogen per day on its own.

The 1.9 nanograms of estrogen in implanted beef is also miniscule compared to 225 nanograms of estrogen in potatoes, 340 nanograms of estrogen in peas, 520 nanograms of estrogen in ice cream, 2,000 nanograms of estrogen in cabbage, 11,250 nanograms of estrogen in soy milk, and 170,000 nanograms of estrogen in soybean oil… all based on a 3 ounce serving size.

So let's try to maintain a sense of perspective about things being "full of" hormones.

Why respond to one part of my post about veg and meat sold in Thailand i.e. "full of chemicals" - and respond with a US report?

Its just my personal viewpoint - veg is fertilised with chemicals rather than organic fertilisers (and please let's not go back to the 'water is a chemical irrelevance...) - animals are given various medications to prevent any possible problems and given growth hormones. You think this is fine, whereas I don't.

But the most important point (to me anyway) is the horror of battery farming animals.

Incidentally, I can remember reading a while ago about fish in some areas being sterile 'cos of the run-off of estrogen from farms? I can't remember the details, but it was a big scandal at the time.

[mogandave]

I think that generally "organic" is for suckers.

Personally, I seriously dislike my food being full of toxic chemicals and hormones - but everyone to their own.

Edit - and when it comes to meat, I find it horrifying that battery farming is tolerated. We're supposed to be civilised and empathetic <deleted>!

Well I guess that makes you one of the suckers.

I like my food inexpensive and tasty.

[attrayant]

Why respond to one part of my post about veg and meat sold in Thailand i.e. "full of chemicals" - and respond with a US report?

I acknowledged as much in my post: regulatory oversight is sketchy to nonexistant here, so we need to go with what we have. Exporters hoping to get into the USA do their best to comply with USA standards although they aren't always successful.

Its just my personal viewpoint - veg is fertilised with chemicals rather than organic fertilisers (and please let's not go back to the 'water is a chemical irrelevance...)

That you think this point is irrelevant boggles the mind. It highlights the fact that people somehow think that organic ≠ chemicals. This is not an opinion or a belief, it's an error in fact. Interesting tidbit: Recent recalls of organic food have been disproportionately high. In the USA (because that's where the data is), organic food accounts for something like 1% of all food sales but 7% of all food recalls. Almost 90% of those were due to bacterial contamination - more common when compost-sourced organic fertilizers are used and not handled properly. How well do you think Thai farmers adhere to safe handling guidelines when using animal manure? I'll take my extra .6 nanograms of estrogen over your listeria outbreak any day.

- animals are given various medications to prevent any possible problems and given growth hormones. You think this is fine, whereas I don't.

My point was to highlight the lunacy of thinking there's something dangerous or unhealthy about consuming beef with .6 nanograms more estrogen in it (compared to non-implanted beef) but those same people don't seem to care that a serving of cabbage has 2000 nanograms of estrogen. With respect to that point, I guess my question would be: why exactly do you think that's not okay? What data set lead you to your (to use your phrase) personal viewpoint?

Edited May 8, 2016 by attrayant

[dick dasterdly]

Why respond to one part of my post about veg and meat sold in Thailand i.e. "full of chemicals" - and respond with a US report?

I acknowledged as much in my post: regulatory oversight is sketchy to nonexistant here, so we need to go with what we have. Exporters hoping to get into the USA do their best to comply with USA standards although they aren't always successful.

Its just my personal viewpoint - veg is fertilised with chemicals rather than organic fertilisers (and please let's not go back to the 'water is a chemical irrelevance...)

That you think this point is irrelevant boggles the mind. It highlights the fact that people somehow think that organic ≠ chemicals. This is not an opinion or a belief, it's an error in fact. Interesting tidbit: Recent recalls of organic food have been disproportionately high. In the USA (because that's where the data is), organic food accounts for something like 1% of all food sales but 7% of all food recalls. Almost 90% of those were due to bacterial contamination - more common when compost-sourced organic fertilizers are used and not handled properly. How well do you think Thai farmers adhere to safe handling guidelines when using animal manure? I'll take my extra .6 nanograms of estrogen over your listeria outbreak any day.

- animals are given various medications to prevent any possible problems and given growth hormones. You think this is fine, whereas I don't.

My point was to highlight the lunacy of thinking there's something dangerous or unhealthy about consuming beef with .6 nanograms more estrogen in it (compared to non-implanted beef) but those same people don't seem to care that a serving of cabbage has 2000 nanograms of estrogen. With respect to that point, I guess my question would be: why exactly do you think that's not okay? What data set lead you to your (to use your phrase) personal viewpoint?

All of that, and yet you didn't bother responding to my last point that many infertile fish were found in rivers (?) as a consequence of estrogen or other chemical run-offs from farms.

I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to argue about this. Common sense tells me that adding toxic chemicals and hormones/antibiotics etc. to food is unlikely to be good for my health - although it is good for food producers' profits.

And you're still ignoring the thing that really horrifies me - battery farming of animals.

You're happy with the way food is produced here, whereas I soak all my veg in 'washing liquid' and just hope that Villa Market's meat is free-range.

[mogandave]

Monsanto has been in business for over 100 years, and while a lot of people hate the, people are living longer than ever.

[siamcrut]

Monsanto has been in business for over 100 years, and while a lot of people hate the, people are living longer than ever.

Yeah right, of course!

555