Organics. The Great Myth - Page 2

Callstar, I challenge you to document that claim. Synthetics are better? Better than what?

Certainly being healthy is better than contracting yellow fever. But does that really make DDT better?

One thing to keep in mind is that virtually all research, nowadays, is funded by people and organizations with a vested interest. That's one reason, for instance, that you don't find any American studies about the efficacy of herbal remedies. The drug companies aren't going to fund a study that would indicate we don't need their expensive (and, often, both dangerous and inefficient) products.

Periodically, the evidence against specific synthetics is so overwhelming that, despite being touted as generally accepted as safe for X years, the real problems are so pervasive that the item has to be banned. We've seen this with such things as DDT, and PCBs, and a dozen or more pesticides, and all kinds of other products, each of which was a "better" way.

The fact is, we do not know the cumulative effects of injesting all those sythetics because no valid studies have been done. But, along with that, is an observable correlation between how long we've been using them, their increased usage, and the fact that we are the most unhealthy people in history.

Notice I said "observable correlation." That is not the same as saying "casual." And that's precisely what needs to be established, by objective research groups. Unfortunately, those are an all but extinct animal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by callstar  Synthetic has been proven time and time again to be better.

Are you sure?   I prefer butter to margarine, cream to cream soup base, beef to textured vegetable protein.

Quote:

Originally Posted by callstar 

What an excellent post!

 

I completely agree with theprivatechef.

 

This crazy 'natural' thing is the same for a lot of things: Pharmaceuticals, Cosmetics and more. Synthetic has been proven time and time again to be better.

 

I know there are people who won't agree but it's a scientific claim so check out the facts and you'll see.

Regardless of whether or not there are facts to support this claim, this forum is for foodservice professionals only and you list yourelf as an at home cook.
 

KY, I dredged up some info from Harold McGees's "On food and cooking" on the topic of milk tolerance.  Hope it's informative.

"Milk in infancy and childhood

In the middle of the 20th century... more than half of all six month olds in the united states drank [cow's milk]. Now that figure is down to less than 10%.  Physicians now recommend that plain cow's milk not be fed to children younger than one year.  One reason is that it provides too much protein, and not enough iron and highly unsaturated fats, for the human infant's needs... Another disadvantage to the early use of cow's milk is that it can trigger an allergy.  The infant's digestive system is not fully formed, and can allow some food protein and protein fragments to pass directly into the blood.  These foreign molecules then provoke a defensive response from the immune system, and that response is strengthened each time the infant eats.  Somewhere between 1% and 10% of American infants suffer from allergy to the abundant protein in cow's milk, whose symptoms may range from mild discomfort to intestinal damage to shock.  Most children eventually grow out of milk allergy.

Milk after infancy:

In the animal world, humans are exceptional for consuming milk of any kind after they have started eating solid food.  And people who drink milk after infancy are the exception within the human species.  The obstacle is the milk sugar lactose, which can't be absorbed and used by the body as is: it must first be broken down into its component sugars by digestive enzymes in the small intestine.  The lactose-digesting enzyme, lactase, reaches its maximum levels in the human intestinal lining shortly after birth, and then slowly declines, with a steady minimum level commencing at between two and five years of age and continuing through adulthood.

The logic of this trend is obvious: it's a waste of its resources for the body to produce an enzyme when it's no longer needed; and once most mammals are weaned, they never encounter lactose in their food again.  But if an adult without much lastase activity does ingest a substantial amount of milk, then the lactose passes through the small intestine and reaches the large intestine, where bacteria metabolize it, and in the process produce carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and methane: all discomforting gases.  Sugar also drawls water from the intestinal walls, and this causes a bloated feeling or diarrhea.

Low lactase activity and its symptoms are called lactose intolerance.  It turns out that adult lactose intolerance is the rule rather than the exception: lactose-tolerant adults are a distinct minority on the planet.  Several thousand years ago, peoples in northern Europe and a few other regions underwent a genetic change that allowed them to produce lastase throughout life, probably because milk was an exceptionally important resource in colder climates.  About 90% of Scandinavians are lactose-tolerant, 90% of French and Germans, but only 40% of southern Europeans and North Africans, and 30% of African Americans."

Excerpt from "On Food and Cooking" by Harold McGee

Hopefully I'm not breaking any copyright laws posting that...

I hope that resolves a few of your arguments.  It was quite a surprise to me to find out that the rest of the world doesn't drink milk the way we do in North America.

"As an aside, I would like to know what there is about the fermentation process that makes something safe after 90 days but dangerous after only 30? Can anyone explain that?"

I'm assuming you are talking about raw milk, not pasteurized milk.  The only way for cheese made from pasteurized milk to become dangerous is if it is poorly handled during the cheese making process and becomes infected with bacteria.  I'm not sure where you heard that safe after 90 and dangerous after 30 days thing but it's not quite accurate.  Raw milk cheeses must be aged a minimum of 60 days at the correct temperature before consuming.  Anything that is ripened for less than that should be made with pasteurized milk for safety and shelf life.  Of course if you know the farmer is careful and his cows are healthy and you are very sanitary in your cheese making you can certainly make some fresh cheeses with no worry, just use common sense and eat it up quickly. 

Pesticides are cancer causing agents no doubt about it. The question is how much pesticides causes cancer. But the fact that Monsanto is genetically manipulating its corn, soy bean and other seed strains to accept an over whelming amount of pesticides in it Round UP product is alarming. Because it makes its way through out the whole food system from the ground to the meat and vegetable on your diner table as it is the primary food source on the food chain for most of our food sources.Its no surprise that cancer rates are soaring as I personal lost 6 friends who died of cancer all in their 40s and 50s and most didn't smoke .  Below is a list of the some of the affects pesticides

• cause low birth weight and birth defects;
• interfere with child development and cognitive ability;
• cause neurological problems;
• disrupt hormone function;
• cause a variety of cancers, including leukemia, kidney cancer, brain cancer, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

So its no secret that Monsanto is at war with anyone who doesn't use its product as its goal is to genetically reproduce every seed on planet earth and replace all nature seeds so that they will be the only source of seeds on the planet. To quote J.D Rockefeller " Competition is bad for business".See "Movie Food Inc".Once the supreme court ruled that Monsanto could legally pattern GM seeds with the help of Clarence Thomas whose law firm represented Monsanto's interest in Wash DC. Surprise Surprise.

Once big Agra entered the arena of organic market they pretty much have card blanc to do what ever they want through their lobbyist and bought and paid for represenitives on capital hill . They can have  the term organic  redefine  to suit big business As they only have to redefine the term in a bill so that it benefits big arga. For example the requirements  for proceeded food to be labeled organic only need to be 75% organic and 25% what ever. And then there is the dishonest farmer who grows his crops with pesticides and sells it as organic.

Since the matrix of organic is so corrupted as to what and what isn't organic its a hard call but don't be mislead pesticides are harmful to the body electric as it builds up in the fatty tissue and organs.

I hope that resolves a few of your arguments.

Thanks for your post, MrChris. Informative, yes. Everything McGee wrote was informative. But the quoted sections don't even address my arguments, let alone resolve them.

Lactose intolerance was a miner side discussion. But, one of the many food-related problems we face is the growing number of infants who are intolerant of their own mother's milk. That should be a sign of something. Unfortunately, we don't know what that something is.

The more basic point is that, thanks to what and the way we eat, our body flora has changed; likely not to the good. If we've done something one way for ten thousand years, and, suddenly, can't do that anymore, then something is radically wrong. Especially if not being able to do that something is contrasurvival.

Intolerance of its mother's milk on the part of a mammal is definately contrasurvival.

I'm not sure where you heard that safe after 90 and dangerous after 30 days thing but it's not quite accurate.  Raw milk cheeses must be aged a minimum of 60 days at the correct temperature before consuming.  

First off, that was a typo, and should have been 60 days, not 90. Sorry about that.

It's not that I heard it. It's a paraphrase of the USDA rules. I was posing the question, and implying an answer, to wit: there is nothing inherently safer about raw milk cheese after 60 days aging than there is after 30 days---or 15 days, or...... It's an abritrary cut off, used by an arrogant agency that, among other things, consistently uses "unsafe" and "untested" as synonyms, and which feels it has to blanket us with excessive rules for our own protection. The rules don't have to make sense, you understand, or be based on any real data. They just have to be there.

Anything that is ripened for less than that should be made with pasteurized milk for safety and shelf life.

Who says so? Show me the testing that's been done, and the data leading to that conclusion.

Certainly the millions of French, Spanish, Italian, German, Scandinavian, and underground Americans who eat unpasturized cheese every day would disagree with you.

And, btw, whether you start from raw milk or pasteurized has little bearing on the shelf life of cheese.

I don't have any of this data for you and I live in Canada so things may be different here but I can assure you that there is nothing arbitrary about those particular laws.

I'm sorry, MrChris, but if you haven't any data than there's no way you can assure me of anything. How do you know, if you lack the facts? You're merely taking somebody else's word for it.

Keep in mind that agencies of any government have one top priority: to assure the continuence (and, if possible, growth) of that agency. And if you think that doesn't include arbitrary and non-scienific decisions that require enforcement and compliance staffs, you're living in a different world than the rest of us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer 

...Keep in mind that agencies of any government have one top priority: to assure the continuence (and, if possible, growth) of that agency....

And a second, or maybe a corollary, "Do no wrong", which leads to "Do nothing, that way no mistakes will be made".

Don't know if I buy into that, Pete. Unfortunately, they do do lots of things, many of them flat wrong. After all, somebody is issuing all those standards, protocols, and advisories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer 

Don't know if I buy into that, Pete. Unfortunately, they do do lots of things, many of them flat wrong. After all, somebody is issuing all those standards, protocols, and advisories.

Ah, but try as you might, you will NEVER find anyone in government that will admit creating those standards, protocols, and advisories. It is always "somebody else"!
 

Ahhh, Pete. We're not in disagreement. Just talking about slightly different things, bureacrats vs  bureacracies.  

First rule of a bureacracy: Perpetuate itself.

First rule of a bureacrat: Don't get caught.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer 

Ahhh, Pete. We're not in disagreement. Just talking about slightly different things, bureacrats vs  bureacracies.  

 

First rule of a bureacracy: Perpetuate itself.

First rule of a bureacrat: Don't get caught.

Yup, that is PRECISELY what I was attempting to say...
 

Well

         I agree and did not like the comment about dred-locks

Not that I have them ....but who cares?

I hear ya KWilkinson

KY- You said:

There is nothing inherently dangerous about drinking milk straight from the cow---otherwise we would have gone extinct long ago".

First, one of the reasons for the invention of pastuerization is indeed to slow the growth of microbes within the product. So indeed it does keep milk from turning, but only on a limited time frame. Pastuerization was invented for this purpose. because of the lack of refrigerations at the time. Still, it serves a purpose in keeping an ever growing and quite large populations safe.

This touches on a point you made about people surviving for 9000+ years without all of this. Yet alot of these techniques were developed specifically for this reason alone: To keep the generaly public safer than before. Now in 1900, after the invention of pasteurization, the death rate in America was around 46! Obviously pasteurization didn't put the current life expectancy to 76 on it's own but you would be insane to say it hasn't prevented the death of quite a few kids out there who could have easily died from food poisoning and the same with the elderly. Milk doesn't have to be completely rotten to make someone sick. Nor does any other food.

Drinking raw milk versus pasteurized is the same principle of eating a rare hamburger to well done. You can go ahead and have that rare burger but you are taking risks, risks that in restaurants you must remind to your customers. You can eat it but it isn't as safe as eating the well done. I certainly wouldn't let my 8 year old nephew have a rare burger at a restaurant, would you? I say this because he is not old enough to weigh the risk with his desire and the fact that food poisoning is more deadly among the young and elderly
 

Of course advances in science and medicine are great but so is healthy living and our increasing awareness, I concur. But you can't say that modern food safey hasn't helped to prolong the lives of millions if not billions of people in the last one hundred years, from 1.6 billion to 6.8 billion. People say that all the things we do to the food are killing us, yet here we are quadrupling the population in 100 years and living almost as twice as long. Has anyone stopped to think the rise in cancer goes with the fact that we are just plain and straight out living longer?

My point: you ask someone from 125 years ago if they would like to live to 76 or 45 and I'll bet you anything they'll take the former. Don't tell me people did just fine back then. Conditions were horrible, even in cilized and advanced cultures.

And where do you get the "infant mortality was not as widespread" thing? I'm curious since data is spotty at best for that.

The bad teeth thing is actually from the fact that poor flossing allows bacteria to grow in the gums and get into the blood stream which actually can "plaque" and block the arteries...causing heart attacks. Talked to a doctor about it once, bad teeth are a good sign of heart disease.

But again in the end it is choice. Have your organic and have your raw milk but don't force it. Let there always be a choice. I think we can all agree on that.

Thank you for your time,

Enrico

Enrico, thank you for your post. Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure what the point is, as much of it seems to be both contradictory and accusatory.

Let's get the accusations out of the way. At no place did I say I was against pasteurization or any other food safety technique. Any of my "anti" statements are directed against overzealous government agencies who promulgate rules and regulations based on the desire to protect me whether or not I need such protection, and doing it with claims that may or may not be bogus.

Pasteurization is a technique that destroys micro-organisms and retards their growth. As such, it is, essentially, a preservation technique---something designed to make milk last longer. You know, like cheese. With one possible exception, milk straight from the cow (i.e. raw milk) is just as healthy as pasteurized.

The open question is this: What effect does refrigeration have on raw milk? Refrigeration is also a short-term preservation method. The only difference between it and pasteurization is that it lacks the initial kill microbial kill off. So, if raw milk is refrigerated, how long does it remain safe? Just guessing, I would say not as long as pasteurized, but certainly longer than USDA suggests.

Now in 1900, after the invention of pasteurization, the death rate in America was around 46!

I'm sorry, is part of this contention missing? Then, as now, the death rate in America, as in everywhere else in the world, is 100%. Any lower figure has to include a casual statement, such as "the death rate from eating worms is 12."

"Death rate," as a statistic, means that as a result of certain causative activities, X number out of 1,000 will die.

But you can't say that modern food safey hasn't helped to prolong the lives of millions if not billions of people in the last one hundred years

I'd really like to know whose posts you're reading under my name. I never even implied such a thing, let alone said it.

People say that all the things we do to the food are killing us, yet here we are quadrupling the population in 100 years and living almost as twice as long.

You seem to be ignoring one salient point: Yes we are living longer. But that's because medical treatment has progressed. It's not that we are healthier. It's that many of the things we suffer from weren't treatable formerly. So we now recover from illnessess that used to kill us.

Don't confuse good medical care with being healthy. They are not the same things.

Has anyone stopped to think the rise in cancer goes with the fact that we are just plain and straight out living longer?

That's certainly partially true. But there are other factors involved as well, such as awareness. It's like all the social problems we face every day. Are there really more child molesters out there today? Or are we just more aware of them?.

One of the factors is diagnosis. Think of all the people in the 19th century who died of "consumption." What, exactly, was their problem? TB? Lung cancer? Chronic bronchitis? Other persistent respiratory diseases?

Add to that population growth. It's quite concievable, for instance, that the cancer rate has remained steady. But, because there are so many more of us, the raw number of sufferers is so great that it's hard to ignore.

But again in the end it is choice. Have your organic and have your raw milk but don't force it. Let there always be a choice.

With that I agree. But the point is, USDA, FDA and other government agencies do not want us to have that choice. And they accomplish their goal through capricious regulations.

I was wrong.  I truly thought that there was evidence backing up the 60 day rule but after making a few calls I eventually ended up talking to a dairy microbiologist and he told me that the date is arbitrary.  He went on to talk about the risks involved with using raw milk for cheese making.  I guess it all depends on how it's made.  Also, the province of Quebec passed a bill earlier this year that will allow artisanal cheese makers to produce and sell cheese ripened less than 60 days and made from raw milk.  The requirements on these farms are very strict, as they should be.  It's a big first for North America.  Only thing is that the sale of raw milk is still completely banned in Canada whereas in the USA there are many states that allow it.  Most people around where I live buy into cooperatives so that they are owners of the cows and therefore can "buy" the raw milk but it's a controversial practice and is under scrutiny from the feds.

Thank you MrChris. It's incredibly refreshing for somebody to admit having been in error. Most people won't.

He went on to talk about the risks involved with using raw milk for cheese making.

Risks? Of course there are risks. There are risks getting out of bed in the morning.

The question, always, is how significant the risk is, and the sort of reaction to that risk.

You know that most household accidents happen in the bath? I forget the exact figure, but its relatively high; 25-30 percent, something like that.

If we apply federal regulatory thinking to that problem, the solution is simple. We should all stop taking showers. That would eliminate a quarter of the accidents that happen at home. And if we refuse to comply with that recommendation, well, we'll just have Congress make it a law.

Sounds ludicrous, when put that way. But no more ridiculous than an arbritrary cut-off for how long it takes for raw-milk cheese to become "safe." Meanwhile, if we are to believe the regulators and some food scientists, they must be dropping like flies all over Europe after eating all that raw-milk cheese.

To really see how it works, just look at canning & preserving recommendations and regulations. Many of them are nonsense, and are based not on testing and evaluating, but on the idea that something might be dangerous, despite zero or low levels of evidence that it is.

USDA, for just one example, recommends against the "unsafe" practice of sealing sugar preserves with wax. We are the only country in the world that takes that approach.

When you examine it, turns out that there's nothing dangerous at all about using wax seals correctly. But our paternalistic gubmint just assumes you and I are too stupid to take reasonable precautions, and are going to do it wrong, and kill or sicken ourselves in the process.

What's really ironic is that the spoilage mechanism with sugar preserves is mold. So, even if you do do it wrong, the problem is self-evident. In short, it is, in practical terms, risk free.

An even better example: Take a look at the reasons why USDA recommends the addition of lemon juice or ascorbic acid to canned tomato products. I mean look at the entire rationale, and what was or was not tested. Then ask yourself if you can have any confidence in any conclusions reached by that agency.

Think about all the food recalls of the past few years. And then tell yourself that USDA, FDA, and its Canadian analogs are the ones who are protecting us from the dangers of unsafe food.

Yeah, right!

Something else to consider is that many regulations and protocols are established not based on actual threats, but on the fact that our ability to measure nothing gets better every day.

I used to edit Package Engineering magazine. As you can imagine, food packaging, and its relationship to food, was a big part of what we covered.

When I started witht the magazine, parts per million were the accepted small measurement. When I left, parts per billion were coming on strong. Now we blithly toss out measurements in parts per trillion.

Often, far too often, protocols are established not on the experimentally proved level of risk, but on the fact that because we can measure that small we will. And if we contend that higher levels are unsafe, people have to recourse but to obey us. Cuz, after all, we're from the gubmint, and we know what's good for people.

Organic is better for the environment, what are you talking about?

Those pesticides that are used are linked to Parkinson's, Cancer, Asthma, ADD/ADHD, dimentia, and a whole list of others,

and they are turning male frogs into females,

They alter the plant's genetic make-up, causing it to lose its immunity to diseases, bugs, pollens, etc., which makes it less healthy for us

Plants are also bread for size and color, rather than taste and nutrition, some organic farmers practice this, but most don't, so organic does taste better, and is healthier. Some organics are sold from big buisness, true, but many aren't also.

Now, don't even get me started on inorganic animal products. those are about 50 times worse, both for the environment and our health.

Hey, I like my genetically modified corn for my genetically modified cornmeal.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaspberryRoll 

Organic is better for the environment, what are you talking about?

 

Those pesticides that are used are linked to Parkinson's, Cancer, Asthma, ADD/ADHD, dimentia, and a whole list of others,

and they are turning male frogs into females,

They alter the plant's genetic make-up, causing it to lose its immunity to diseases, bugs, pollens, etc., which makes it less healthy for us

 

Plants are also bread for size and color, rather than taste and nutrition, some organic farmers practice this, but most don't, so organic does taste better, and is healthier. Some organics are sold from big buisness, true, but many aren't also.

 

Now, don't even get me started on inorganic animal products. those are about 50 times worse, both for the environment and our health.

I think Raspberry's comment was also about the pesticides.

We may or may not taste the difference between organic and non, GMO and non GMO,  but I sure would love to not have to eat pesticides.

Dear oak  , ash and thorn,..., what the "insert every swear word you ever heard from every bad relative, here".  Do not tell me that corporate ways are better ..I won' t believe it.  It took special dispensation to even form the first corporation in America and at that, it used to be charged to donate a certain amount to the public good and honestly be beneficial to society.. If you knew  1/10 of Monsanto's actions you would be out with a blowtorch burning every last crop they were developing. Those dirty , rotten so and so's are hiding behind every legal loophole they can find and suing honest farmers left, right , front and center. It's really (IMO)  the devil incarnate.  seeds that produce plants that don't propagate themselves and getting sued for airplanes that seed your property without your say so? and then make your crop a hybrid that doesn't seed? y'know some people may be rednecks, some be blue's fans, some are "city" folk...some might be geeks.....but when we run out of food cause "plants just don't seed properly"  we will all be farmer's again....angry.... hungry.. farmers.

edit : ok.... I have had a couple of drinks..or more....doesn't mean I'm wrong (doesn't mean i am right) but if you can google at all, look at Monsanto and their abominable practices. How people work there and take a paycheck I wouldn't know.

When you take the exact same strain of a plant and grow it in two different ways, its chemical and genetic makeup remain the same.

Private Chef, I don't think this is quite what you're trying to say. In point of fact, environmental conditions can and do effect how a plant grows, and its chemical make-up. Plus, the use of synthetics contributes to a greater mutation rate, which means one could make a case that one method does affect the genetic makeup.

BTW, just to be technically correct, you don't mean "strain." Stains are, by definition, different. What you mean, with vegetables, is "variety," or, with ornamentals, "cultivar." A deeper explanation is out of place, here. But if you want, PM me and I'll explain the difference between varieties, strains, and lines.

What you're trying to say, I think, is that if you grow the same variety in two patches, one organically and one using synthetics, the two will be essentially the same, all other things being equal. And in that you'd be correct---so far as the biomass, including the fruit, is concerned.

Something many on this thread seem to be overlooking is that, excluding the factory farms, we do not grow organically for the sake of the plants, but for the sake of the ground. A basic axiom among true organic growers is: if you want to grow good plants, just grow good soil. The plants will take care of themselves.

If you examine the soil of the monocultural factory farms it is all but sterile. There is little if any life to it, and it is saturated with nonbeneficial and potentially harmful salts. They have to keep dumping "chemicals" on it, cuz that's the only way they can get crops to grow. 

Examine the soil of an organic farm, and you find something teaming with life. The soil is full of worms, and beneficial molds, and what we call the micro-herd. Above ground are beneficial insects, such as predatory wasps.

In the United States, 2006 brought two major outbreaks of E. coli, both resulting in deaths and numerous illnesses, ultimately traced to organically grown spinach and lettuce.

Significantly, these were the result of practices used by the organics divisions of factory farms, not from the small, diverse, organic growers.

A blanket statement like "organic cultivation results in a crop with superior nutritional value" has no logical or factual basis.

Although this overstates the case somewhat, it is, essentially, correct. But, again, it assumes factors outside the food distribution system. And we ignore those at our peril.

We may or may not taste the difference between organic and non, GMO and non GMO,  but I sure would love to not have to eat pesticides.

Kuan, nothing against the point you're trying to make; God knows I agree with it. But there's a danger with comments like this in that they confuse issues.

Organic vs synthetic chemicals is one issue.

Open pollinated vs hybrid is another issue.

GMOs (i.e., frankenfoods) is another issue still.

Certainly there is some overlap and inter-relatedness among them. But the problems, concerns, and controversies about them really should be kept discrete.

For instance, there is no reason why you cannot grow GMOs organically. Sure, in many cases Monsanto might refuse to sell you more seed if you did. But that first year the plants wouldn't care. And, in the cases where further chemical additions aren't necessary (such as any of the Bt-(plant) products), Monsanto wouldn't care at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuan 

I think Raspberry's comment was also about the pesticides.

 

We may or may not taste the difference between organic and non, GMO and non GMO,  but I sure would love to not have to eat pesticides.

Then simply WASH your produce!

As an Agricultural Engineer, I am confident that a great majority of agricultural producers or packers DO wash their products and, IMHO, a great majority of "pesticides" do not act "systemically", i.e. enter the plant product we eat.

Remember, nicotine is a standard "organic pesticide", among others and you need to wash it away.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteMcCracken 

 

Then simply WASH your produce!

 

As an Agricultural Engineer, I am confident that a great majority of agricultural producers or packers DO wash their products and, IMHO, a great majority of "pesticides" do not act "systemically", i.e. enter the plant product we eat.

 

Remember, nicotine is a standard "organic pesticide", among others and you need to wash it away.
 

The pesticides in the ground water don't go up through the roots and stem into the fruit?