>To question anything and everything is the right approach as hardly
anything is static and exact. :)

I wholly agree, Waldemar!

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least
once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.-- Rene
Descartes


> >While the above ratio is staggering, I'd like to see a comparison in
> toxicity to humans for both groups.  What is toxic to a caterpillar, may be
> neutral or beneficial to a human.


That was exactly Dr Ame's question--that comparative studies simply weren't
being done.


> >Some plant toxins are actually desirable since they help calibrate the
> body's immune response.
>

Agreed!  Look at the toxins in tomatoes and brassicas, some of which
appparently have anticancer properties when ingested by humans.


> > I would like to know if, unlike synthetic pesticides, plants' natural
> pesticides are carcinogenic in humans.
>

Excellent question, although I'm curious about the abstract's statement that
"the rarity of cancer in antiquity remains undisputed."
Cancer is mainly a disease of the aged.  Folk in earlier civilizations did
not live as long, so cancer would not be expected to be common.  Second
question is, other than bone cancer, what archaeological signs would cancer
leave in  human remains?

>
> >A boatload of mainstream studies also point to vitamin D's anti-cancer
> properties:
>

Again in total agreement, which may suggest that sunlight exposure was
important to our ancestors to protect them from plant toxins!

>
> >I don't like synthetic pesticides for a good reason:
>

The article that you cited doesn't say anything about toxicity of naturally
occurring pesticides, which is what this discussion is about.  I do not care
to add additional toxins to my, or my bee's diet, either.  The question of
this discussion is whether the addition of small quantities of
xenochemicals, relative to the vast quantities of natural pesticides, are
significant.

Clearly the long-lived organochlorines and organophosphates (like
coumaphos), which can bioaccumulate are cause for concern, which is why the
EPA and other First World countries are phasing them out.

>
> >I don't agree with this.  Increasing the variety of edible foods in the
> diet is beneficial.
>

Waldemar, this is the sort of statement that Ames questions.  Do you have
any data that support this?  How about celiac disease (from grains), lactose
intolerance in many human gene lines, food allergies by many, etc?  For many
folk, adding new natural foods can be harmful or deadly.


>   >Eg. everyone benefits from the enzymes in pineapples.
>

I know many people whose bodies are intolerant of pineapple, so perhaps not
a good example...

>
> >The bigger and worse change in the modern [US] diet has been the move to
> processed, industrial food that has led to obesity and disease.


Waldemar, you are straying from the topic.

>
> >You can also google nutrient content bet. organic and conventional food.
>  The difference is awesome.
>

Waldemar, I've been an organic gardener for nearly 40 years.  But again, off
topic.  The topic is, does my organic produce, with its ramped up immune
phytotoxins produced in response to the greater pest load, assault me with
increased carcinogens along with the additional vitamins and minerals?

Randy Oliver

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm