It's a hypothesis I've been considering for some time. There are a number of people around me who are health-conscious and particular about natural foods, organic products, and pesticide-free produce, but some of them are experiencing strange symptoms such as vision loss or body aches.

I feel that pesticide-free and organic products have high volatility. While there are good products, there are also many that are harmful, and I believe that the negative impact on the body from inferior products is significant. I think it's better to eat average, safe foods, as the harm to the body is less, and even people with weak constitutions can survive.

According to research results in Germany, there were many cases of sudden death in infants who were given pesticide-free powdered milk during the period when natural foods became popular. The investigation suggested that sulfur contained in German soil was the cause. Pesticides neutralize sulfur, but in pesticide-free products, it may remain and lead to sudden death.

Indeed, I understand that, in principle, pesticide-free, fresh foods that do not contain harmful substances are healthier, and there are many such products. However, if the soil contains harmful substances, pesticides may be breaking them down.

Also, pesticide-free products spoil quickly, and it is difficult for modern people to regularly consume pesticide-free and healthy foods. Even if you have your own garden, it is difficult to grow pesticide-free or organic produce, and even if you buy it, there are significant hurdles, whether you make it yourself or buy it. Furthermore, even foods that are thought to be pesticide-free may be contaminated by pesticides from the surrounding environment.

Therefore, basically, I end up buying them, but if there are no farms nearby, they spoil quickly, and in the absence of information, it is often impossible to know what kind of soil they were grown in and what dangers they may pose. In such situations, I feel that many people are blindly accepting products simply because they are "pesticide-free" or "organic."

In Japan, people who prefer organic and pesticide-free foods tend to accept things in nature without thinking. This is often formed by farmers, marketing, or the advertising of sellers.

For example, Himalayan rock salt, which is sold as a "natural product," has various components. The darker ones contain sulfur, which makes them suitable for bathing. However, some people, believing that "it's a natural product," use it for food. If you use rock salt containing sulfur in your daily life, it may cause abnormalities in the body, such as sudden death in infants. In fact, a friend of mine who lives nearby was suffering from symptoms such as loss of vision and pain all over the body. It seems that these people were obsessed with natural foods and organic products, and as a result, they damaged their bodies.

Plants grown without pesticides survive by being eaten by weeds and insects. This can be interpreted as the weak plants being eliminated, and only the strong ones survive. When humans eat these plants that have survived and are full of vitality, they also take in insects, dirt, pathogens, and bitter, harmful substances that the plant itself produces to protect itself. As a result, even if the nutritional value is high, you are also taking in harmful substances.

From an individual perspective, I personally believe that "pesticide-free" and "naturally occurring" products are often harmful to the body.

However, for some reason, there is a myth that eating pesticide-free products leads to good health. This is probably because people with weaker bodies become even more unhealthy when eating pesticide-free products, while people with strong bodies can remain healthy even when eating pesticide-free products. It's a difference between looking at individuals and looking at a group. When looking at individuals, those who use pesticides can live relatively healthy lives, even if they are weak. However, when looking at a group, there is a mix of strong and weak people in the group that uses pesticides, so the group as a whole may not appear to be very healthy. However, even weak people can survive in the group that uses pesticides. On the other hand, in the case of pesticide-free products, weak people are eliminated, so only relatively strong people survive in the group. As a result, an illusion arises that eating pesticide-free products leads to good health. However, in reality, it is the result of weak individuals (people) who became unhealthy and died from eating pesticide-free foods being eliminated. This is a cruel story, but I think that is the reality.

The idea that "naturally occurring things are good" is a blind statement that does not understand the reality of nature. If you live in the countryside, you quickly realize that most plants are inedible, and there are fewer edible ones. If you are brainwashed by marketing based on intellectual thinking in the city, you may have the illusion that everything in the mountains is healthy. It is common sense that not everything in the mountains is edible, but for some reason, there is a tendency to instill the idea that "naturally occurring things are good."

Vegetables are selected from edible things found in nature, and their safety for the human body has been verified over many years before they are sold. Therefore, what is currently being sold is not the original species, but has been bred and improved. In other words, it is quite different from what exists in nature. There is a history of increasing the number of disease-resistant and pest-resistant varieties and cultivating them.

To put it extremely, people who advocate for organic farming or "things found in nature" might argue that we should only eat the "original species" of vegetables. When I say this, I often encounter people who say they "don't understand," but if people who are for or against organic farming are saying that "things found in nature are good," then eventually they should arrive at the "original species," shouldn't they? With that kind of thinking in mind, there are some efforts to cultivate original species, but they don't seem to be very widespread. Most people who like organic or natural foods are satisfied if the bred varieties are grown organically or without pesticides, even if they are not the original species. It is hard to understand, from an outside perspective, why someone who values "things found in nature" would accept varieties that have been modified by human hands; it seems like a compromise. There is a history of people in the past selecting good strains and breeding them, which has been going on for a long time, so there is a cumulative effect of primitive breeding. It is difficult to understand what is being affirmed and what is being denied. Many varieties are being improved using scientific methods in modern times, but people are oblivious to that, and blindly saying that "it's good because it's found in nature" seems like they are being brainwashed by marketing.

There is also the idea that "strains that have been naturally selected are good," but nowadays, the crossbreeding of strains is being intentionally researched and conducted, so it is hard to understand why people would accept that when it involves artificial intervention. If this is being said in opposition to genetically modified organisms, I can understand it to some extent. However, there are still many aspects of genetically modified organisms that need to be researched and verified.

This is a different story, but sometimes I hear people say that "people from the period of rapid economic growth ate healthy foods, were active, and were healthy with long lifespans." However, about 30 years ago, it was said in a different context that "people from the period of rapid economic growth were in unhealthy environments, so they had strong resistance." Recently, it seems like people are saying that "people from the period of rapid economic growth ate healthy foods like organic foods, so they remain healthy even in old age," which is a convenient interpretation that is similar but quite different. In reality, this is probably closer to a superstition. It seems like people are interpreting it in a way that sounds good, and that is being passed down as a folk belief.

In the early Showa period, the mortality rate was high, and weak individuals died young, resulting in only strong individuals surviving. This is the reality. If only strong individuals remain, it is natural that their lifespan will also be longer. This is not because they had a healthy diet in their youth, nor is it because they developed resistance due to a harmful environment. This hypothesis is based on the premise that "the vitality of an individual does not change so easily." However, it is as if, due to being in a harmful environment and eating terrible food, weak individuals were eliminated, leaving only strong individuals, and now, healthy people are living longer. This is just a hypothesis, but I personally find it to be a convincing story.

I have seen several people around me who, in an attempt to be healthy, ended up getting sick. Therefore, I think this hypothesis has some credibility. I personally believe that if you believe in superstition or marketing propaganda and reach for organic or pesticide-free products, you will end up in trouble.

Ultimately, it depends on whether you think for yourself. Even if something is advertised as good, you must see it with your own eyes and think for yourself. If you can do that, you can correct things even if something strange happens. If you can't, you will remain blind even if you get sick, and you won't be able to recognize the cause. Even a strong individual will get sick if they eat rock salt containing sulfur on a daily basis. It's a matter of self-inflicted misfortune, but the fact that weak individuals get sick and are eliminated because they are obsessed with organic, natural farming, or pesticide-free products, makes you feel that life is quite harsh.

This is simply an understanding of the situation, without judging whether it is good or bad.