This article called ACSH Holiday Dinner Menu by the American Council on Science and Health shows the typical toxins and carcinogens that are found in a typical holiday meal. These foods are cooked and not organic. Also, a lot of the carcinogens come from the cooking process.

After showing all the poisons in the foods, the article then goes to justify why this is OK (this is the mind trying to rationalize a bad situation). It makes a big point about the poison is the dose. What the article doesn't say is that these toxins will create cellular death even at small dosages. And when the dosage is high enough, the entire organism (you) dies. Certainly our bodies can stand having a few hundred or thousands of cells die every time we ingest a toxin (because we have trillions), but is that necessary, and this didn't happen, wouldn't we have more energy to do other things in our life?

Are the toxins that they appear to be listing in fresh/raw foods from commercial growing? or are they naturally occuring?

The list of raw food toxins seems to include:
aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides, furan derivatives, psoralens, allyl isothiocyanate, estragole, methyl eugenol

OR did I just read that web page wrong?

Ian.

You can look up these chemical in Wikipedia. Some are part of the plant, others are additives (pesticides, waxes, etc).

Another problem I see with that article is that when comparing natural carcinogens to synthetic carcinogens, they fail to point out that natural carcinogens are normally consumed along with a vast spectrum of other naturally occuring chemicals (which likely have a balancing/neutralizing effect on eachother).

But most carcinogenicity studies are done with isolated forms of these natural chemicals.

Synthetic chemicals, indeed, are more often consumed in relatively isolated and more-concentrated amounts, such as with many artificially colored/sweetened beverages.

Thus the notion that we should reject "those hyped indictments of artificial sweeteners, pesticides, food colorings, and other synthetic ingredients that at high doses cause cancer in rodents" is wholly unsupported by their arguments.

Perusing their website we see that the ACSH is not an independent body...

They state: "This remains the fundraising policy today, with about 40% of ACSH funding coming from private foundations, about 40% from corporations, and the rest of the sale of ACSH publications."

So they are 40% supported by corporations... why dont they list their major corporate sponsors and other major sponsors on their website... what do they have to hide?

What they didn't mention is how much of the bad stuff is in the foods. It could be only something like .0001%.