I was at a turf industry trade show yesterday talking to a salesperson from a company that markets Organic fertilizer to golf courses (they describe it as the “natural amino acids found in feather, blood, meat and fish meals”). There are actually a lot of better, controlled-release nitrogen fertilizer options for turf, but I decided just to be polite and ask if they were also selling into agricultural markets. He said that they had very good sales for “Organic Tobacco.” Apparently this is a growing export market to the EU with some domestic sales.
OK, is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture? Can someone explain the logic here? Why would someone consume the most clearly documented cancer and heart disease-causing consumer product in the world and yet trouble themselves with whether it is “Organic?”
The scientific evidence for the health benefits of eating Organic are actually not as clear as many Organic consumers think, but I don’t believe that anyone could argue that the positives of “Organic” could overcome the health negatives of tobacco!
Anyway, I’d be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Image of French woman smoking from saneboy
Your logic is abysmal! Perhaps the substances/chemicals added to the tobacco are the carcinogens! Besides, cancer is curable; Burzynski/Gerson etc. etc. etc.
Read and think more, you may discover something other than conventional mainstream stupidity!
I’m always amazed at how long this comment stream keeps going. You guys should all be dead by now!
Organic is a new thing in tobacco…. It would be better if it really were organic and additive free…. Less people smoking = problems for big tobacco = LIES LIES and LIES
One can’t eliminate the use of phosphate fertilizers or you will eventually be unable to grow on land where the phosphorus has been depleted. All you can do is be careful about the rate and placement. That is problematic for Organic. Most Organic crops are fertilized with compost originating from animal manures and those have excess phosphorus relative to the amount of nitrogen. This is why farms near the Chesapeake Bay are paid by a state program to truck their manure far away from the water. Also, I think irrigation with fluoridated municipal water is very rare – mainly an issue for backyard gardeners
I’m tickled by this notion of organic tobacco myself, but I hope we can all agree that the word is just that; a word. How each crop is grown can vary wildly depending on all kinds of factors, including (but not at all limited to) irrigation, as brought up by a previous commenter. When all is said and done, two very different end products can each get ‘organic’ smacked on the front of the packaging, priced 25% higher, assuaging the the consciences guilt-laden of green freaks everywhere.
The ideas behind what a catch phrase like “organic tobacco” stands for — environmentally sound, well-intentioned, responsible, holistic agricultural practices in the cultivation of tobacco and the industry surrounding it — are valid, and both smokers and non-smokers are wise to consider these ideas as an alternative to the current scheme of things. If we can prevent ourselves from getting caught up in the semantics of the thing, the slogans of organic this, organic that, which grow emptier and emptier with each use, and really leave singular terms like ‘organic’ behind in favor of an overall outlook on how to best raise a crop, growing “good tobacco” is entirely possible. and yes, eliminate irrigation with fluoridated municipal water, the use of phosphate fertilizers and all additives and you have most definitely made many a step in the right direction, but that’s only the beginning.
well people who puff tobacco for the taste (people who dont inhale) like it because there is far less crap in it to muck up the flavor, and the primary reason that most consumer tobacco is bad is because they grow it with radioactive fertalizer and they cant get all of that radiation back out of the plants after its harvested so they chop it up and soak it in toxic chemicals to draw some of it out then they rinse it dry it and roll it up into ciggarets (this dosent happen with organic so it is less toxic and hence forth slightly less dangerous)
DJ,
I think you make some good points about smoking death statistics. Lifestyle choices have different outcomes for different people because of some combination of genetics, combined factors and luck. Some people get by with smoking their whole life and some die young from involuntary second-hand smoke exposure.
Lots of people worry far to much about what they eat/drink when diversity and moderation are what really makes sense. So, for instance I enjoy having some French fries may once or twice a month. I actually liked them better back in my teenage years when McDonalds cooked them in beef tallow. That was actually healthier than the period where they were cooked in dehydrogenated vegetable oil with transfats.
I’ve always wondered if anyone besides myself finds the term “smoking related illness” somewhat suspicious or vague. To further my suspicion on this term, recently my uncle passed away. Throughout his entire life, he consumed mostly fatty, fried, and sugary foods. He never exercised, he consumed alcohol heavily on a daily basis, and he smoked a pack a day until about 30 years ago. In his medical records, there was documentation of his previous smoking habits. There was also documentation stating he stopped smoking roughly 30 years ago. Heart disease killed him. The last week of his life was spent in a hospital bed with close monitoring from various machines and nurses. The doctor, never mentioning my uncle’s former cigarette use, told my family bad drinking, eating habits and lack of exercise are what got him to this point; which makes 100% perfect sense. Then he passed away.
Now? My uncles is labeled as having died from “smoking related illness”. A friend of mine’s grandmother had a very similar death. She once smoked, and there’s documentation of that in her medical records; she stopped smoking, then died at the age of 89, and her death is labeled as being caused from “smoking related illness”.
So if there’s any documentation in your medical record stating you’ve ever smoked, you’re death, no matter the cause (with the exception of a car crash or skydiving accident) will be defaulted to a “smoking related illness”.
I’m not suggesting that smoking isn’t harmful. But I’m not far from believing McDonald’s, KFC, PizzaHut, Budweiser, Jack Daniels, Coca-Cola, and Starbucks are equally as terrible for your body. Smoking a freshly dried organic tobacco leaf can’t possibly be as terrible for you as a Big Mac with fries and a Coke. I personally believe the facts and numbers we all hear about tobacco smoke, and “tobacco related illness” are insultingly exaggerated. Then people ask me “why would they care to do that?”
Well, I’ve learned a few things, but unfortunately my answer to that sounds to much like a conspiracy theory. But other cultures have smoked for centuries, leading relatively long lives… up until recently.
The bottom line: organic tobacco smoke IS better than chemical soaked tobacco. You’d be out of your mind to think otherwise.
Exactly what I think. Thank you, DJ!
Did you know that tobacco in cigarettes can have up to 499 additives? These are supposed to “improve” the tobacco quality, thus tobacco will become more aromatic, addictive, etc.. All these 499 additives are BAD !!! Google for more info. I remember when I was a kid there was a guy from Georgia aged at 126 years, who smoked natural (organic) tobacco for the whole his life. So the cigarettes these days use most of these 499 additives and they are a lot more harmful than the cigarettes produced with organic tobacco. BTW the same applies to our food as well. Mass production food is not good for you. Organically produced food in small batches is the way to go.
Actually, organic fertilizers tend to have a more beneficial affect on soil microorganisms, which aid in nutrient uptake through the roots. However, as I think you noticed, it doesn’t take long for industry to take organic matter, break it down into individual components and then sell those components as organic. Eventually, we end up with the same problem of microorganism die off as we had with chemical fertilizer.
The spirit of organics was the concept of plowing under fields with composting mixed organic matter in ways the replenish that which may have been depleted by previous crops.
Poor practices like intensive crop farming without rotation and only adding nutrients required by a specific plant with regard for the need of the microorganisms explains why food crops have had declining nutrient values over the last few decades (ignoring issues related to GM crops).
In terms of tobacco, the original concept was one of harm reduction and was usually coupled with additive-free processing, so that the end product contained as few adulterants as possible.
If interested, you will be able to find a growing body of peer reviewed scientific evidence that tobacco, even in its smoked form, actually has health benefits that, in moderate consumption (5-10 cigarettes a day) might carry more benefit than risk and the negative cost to human health may be attributed to the additives and fertilizer.
That’s the idea anyway and to many, this seems like common sense.
Miguel
I would love to know if you have links or sources to these peer review articles of how tobacco may actually be benificial to you. Many people dont know that the additives or harmful chemicals they list, around 4000 in some cases, are added and have no connection to the dried tobacco leaf, nicotine of course is an alkolide so it is present. I want my father to stop smoking but he wont, so if i can find any sort of evidence that additive free tobacco may not be as harmful as the additive cigarattes then it may well be worth looking into it. Appreciate it!
If, for once, a smoker will think about somebody besides themselves, they will realize that what you choose to purchase also impacts the health of your community and your world. Being as how the pesticides utilized on tobacco are some of the most dangerous neurotoxins known to man, choosing organic means you are minimizing the damage to farmer health and dramatically reducing toxins that enter the water supply and the ground which then impact a host of living organisms and ultimately impact the health and happiness of us all. The choice to purchase organic tobacco for a smoker should be as clear as the choice to purchase organic meat for a non-vegetarian.
Most of you guys are crazy, choosing organic tobacco has nothing to do with the saving the environment. The commercial mass market cigarettes are processed with 100s of known dangerous chemicals to standardize flavor, make them burn faster, supposedly even to increase addictiveness, ect; Organic Tobacco It is definitely no where near as dangerous as this chemical laced stuff.
Yes it is well documented that burning any organic material can create some carcinogenic combustion products, but without all the additives the amounts of dangerous compounds one would be exposed to from smoking would be significantly limited; probably to the point where occasional responsible use would likely not increase cancer risk at all, where the typical addicted user who smokes frequently would likely still have increased risk of smoker related illness, but it would still be much lower than if that person smoked the same amount of commercial cigarettes.
Tobacco is a god given plant, with many uses. Occasional natural tobacco use is enjoyable and probably not all that harmful. There is controversy over how organic American spirts is, seeing as it is owned by phillip morris. Grow your own, it is very easy, curing sounds like trouble – Ive never done it- but it may not be as tough as it sounds. I have a couple plants I grab a fresh leaf off for a chew once or twice a week, not smoking, but very pleasant and definitley no where near as dangerous as commercial tobacco…