5 ms·
When I was a graduate student, a paper that I read while randomly reading stuff in the library really changed how I looked at things in this area - I found a co
by localhost 5y ago
When I was a graduate student, a paper that I read while randomly reading stuff in the library really changed how I looked at things in this area - I found a copy here [1] and the DOI [2]. The author is Bruce Ames, creator of the "Ames Test" for carcinogenicity [3]
The core arguments in the paper are that plants don't exist to serve as food for us, they exist to reproduce. Plants grown in a stressful environment spend significant metabolic energy in generating chemical defenses against predators e.g., molds. Some of those chemical defenses are carcinogenic. Plants grown in less stressful (pesticide-controlled) environments generate less of those chemical defenses.
So, roughly synthetic == bad, natural == good.
Yes, this is a 1990 paper and perhaps it is no longer true and I'm certainly no expert in this area (I'm sad to see that a paper that influenced me so much at the time lacks significant citations).
[1] https://files.toxplanet.com/cpdb/pdfs/Angew.pdf
[2] DOI: 10.1002/anie.199011971
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Ames
- colechristensen 5y agoI entirely believe this but would add a couple of cautions. One is that it likely goes both directions: there are likely stressors increased by both conventional and organic production (presumably different ones) Plant health is tied pretty closely with local ecology health and there is a lot of symbiosis going on. Second is that you are not a weed or an insect or a fungus. Some plant defenses are quite enjoyed by humans (lots of drugs, caffeine, capsaicin, the flavors of most herbs). It is the kind of thing where you can’t make a blanket generalization. You need specifics and weighed risks. An interesting opening theory but definitely not enough to base life choices on.