My farm is near one of Sweden’s largest producers of neurotoxin. It’s also one of the world’s most familiar brands: Absolut Vodka.
I have nothing against alcohol. In fact, I’m quite fond of it.
Although alcoholic beverages have given me much enjoyment, they’re still depressants and dangerous in large doses. Alcohol impairs judgment and slows reaction times. Long-term use damages the brain and liver. The World Health Organization puts it in the same category of carcinogen as tobacco and asbestos.
That’s why I laughed when I read an article about glyphosate and wine. Barely traceable residues of a low-toxicity crop-protection tool—we’re talking parts per billion—made the headlines.
Meanwhile, people drink beer, wine, vodka, and more without thinking that their alcohol content is a proven carcinogenic neurotoxin.
Farmers like me are understandably tired of the “poison” debate. Nobody who works hard to grow food for others wants their profession reduced to the language of toxins. And they certainly don’t want the crop-protection tools they use to defend their fields from weeds and pests portrayed as if they were dangerous by default.
Yet many consumers and journalists assume that anything synthetic in agriculture must be suspect, that residues end up on their plates, and that “natural” or organic foods are, by definition, safer than other kinds.
For me, “poison” is a scientific and technical term, not a rhetorical one. A fundamental rule of toxicology is that dosage matters more than origin. A molecule isn’t dangerous just because it comes from a factory, and it isn’t harmless just because it comes from nature.
What matters is our level of exposure.
Coffee is a perfect example. The plant produces an alkaloid pesticide to defend itself against insects and other predators. In humans, high doses of it can trigger anxiety, palpitations, and sleeplessness. In extreme cases, it can cause seizures or even death.
Yet we harvest coffee beans because we want the toxic effect from the plant’s own pesticide—which in everyday language we call “caffeine.”
Chocolate contains theobromine, a natural alkaloid that wards off insects. In high doses, it can make humans nauseous or shaky. And still we love chocolate for the mild stimulant effect.
Chili peppers use capsaicin as a deterrent: It burns the mouths of mammals. In large amounts, it can damage tissue. Even so, humans seek it out for the thrill of the taste.
Garlic releases allicin when it’s crushed. This compound is toxic to microbes and irritating in excess but celebrated for its flavor and even its “health” benefits.
Fruits like cherries and apricots hide compounds that release cyanide. The only thing standing between the children munching cherries in the garden and death by poison is that they don’t chew the pits.
Plants protect themselves with thorns or chemical warfare because they can’t run away from predators. We love them for it—and so natural toxins are part of our daily diet.
The late toxicologist Bruce Ames once made the point sharply. In a famous analysis, he showed that more than 99.9 percent of the pesticides we consume come from the plants themselves. On average, people eat about 1,500 milligrams of natural pesticides each day, compared to less than one—tenth of a milligram of synthetic residue.
We must appreciate this context as we consider pesticide residues in food. The legal limits of exposure are set with massive safety margins. Regulators base them on the concept of an Acceptable Daily Intake. Toxicologists first determine the highest dose of a substance that shows no observable effect in animals. That’s effect, not harm. Then they divide that figure by at least 100 to build in a huge margin of safety.
Let’s keep a sense of proportion. Barely measurable residues of crop protection do not threaten our health.
I use crop-protection tools on my farm to protect the plants, the soil, and ultimately ourselves. They help me grow the best and safest wheat, barely, sugar beets, and oilseed rape.
Farmers deserve better than to have their work reduced to toxic clichés about “poison.” And consumers deserve better than headlines driven by ignorance and fear.
I’m going to keep drinking coffee, which I prefer strong and black each day. I will also continue to eat chocolate, chilis, cherries, and garlic. And I’ll have vodka from time to time as well.
If we want healthier conversations about food, we must start with sound science and its simple truth that crop protection is not the enemy of safe food but the reason we have it.
