It's a hypothesis I've had for a while. 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 suffering from strange symptoms such as vision loss or body pain.

Pesticide-free and organic products have a large volatility, and while there are good products, there are also many products that can be harmful. I think that the negative impact on the body from bad products outweighs the benefits of good products. I think that eating safe food that uses pesticides, even if it's average, is less harmful to the body, and even people with weaker constitutions can survive. This is my hypothesis.

There was a study in Germany where, when organic milk powder was given to babies, there were many cases of sudden death, and an investigation was conducted. The results of the investigation showed that the sulfur contained in the soil of Germany was the cause, and that pesticides neutralize the sulfur, but sulfur remains when pesticides are not used, leading to sudden death.

It is certainly true that pesticide-free and fresh products that do not contain harmful substances are healthier, and there are many such products. On the other hand, as mentioned above, there are cases where pesticides decompose harmful substances in the soil.

Pesticide-free products spoil quickly, and for modern people who cannot live near farms, it is difficult to eat pesticide-free and healthy food on a daily basis. Even if you have your own farm, it is difficult to grow pesticide-free or organic produce. Whether you buy it or make it yourself, it is a fairly high hurdle. Moreover, even if you think you are growing pesticide-free, pesticides can flow in from the surrounding areas, and it is common to find that pesticides are included when you measure it.

Therefore, basically, you have to buy it, but if there is no farm nearby, the spoilage is fast, and even if it is said to be pesticide-free, you don't know what kind of soil it was grown in, and you don't know what dangers it may have.

There are many people who are blindly accepting things like "because it's pesticide-free" or "because it's organic" in such a situation.

In Japan, people who prefer organic and pesticide-free foods tend to accept "things that are in nature" without thinking. This is often because farmers, marketers, or sellers are promoting it, and people are being made to think that way through marketing.

For example, Himalayan rock salt, which is sold as a "natural product," has various components. The darker ones contain sulfur and are suitable for bathing, but some people, believing that "it's a natural product," use it for food. Using rock salt containing sulfur in daily life 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.

Uncultivated plants grow only from those that survive being eaten by weeds and insects. This can be interpreted as the weak plants being eliminated, leaving only the strong ones. 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, they are also ingesting harmful substances.

From an individual perspective, I personally believe that uncultivated and "naturally occurring" things are often harmful to the body.

However, for some reason, there is a myth that eating uncultivated foods leads to good health. This is probably because people with weaker bodies become even more unhealthy when eating uncultivated foods, while strong people who can stay healthy even when eating uncultivated foods survive. 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 does not seem very healthy. However, even weak people can survive in the group that uses pesticides. On the other hand, in the case of uncultivated foods, weak people are eliminated, so only relatively strong people survive in the group. As a result, an illusion arises that eating uncultivated foods leads to good health, but in reality, it is the result of weak individuals (people) who became unhealthy and died from eating uncultivated foods being eliminated. This is a cruel story, but I think that is the reality.

The idea that "things that occur naturally are good" is a blind story 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 be programmed with the idea that "things that occur naturally 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 and "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 and natural foods are satisfied if the varieties have been bred and improved, but are grown without pesticides or organically. 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 half-hearted approach. 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 resistance." Recently, it seems like people are saying that "people from the period of rapid economic growth ate healthy foods like organic products, so they are healthy even when they get old," 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," but it is as if weak individuals were eliminated due to a harmful environment and terrible food, resulting in healthy individuals 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 strong individuals 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 me feel that life is quite harsh.

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