No this is not an Agatha Christie remake.
Although, she was definitely on to something.
Allow me to explain.
In 2010 USDA conducted a survey and found that “only 0.25% of 12,845 samples of drinking water and food contained pesticide residues above tolerance limits set by the EPA. [Environmental Protection Agency]” Therefore:“The report concluded that pesticide residues pose no safety risk through food”
Well terrific! Give a point to the written art of the Media Skew… 0.25% is written in a way that looks negligible.
As negligible as the EPA/USDA needs you to believe it is. 0.25% = 0.0025.
But out of 12,845 that is still 32 samples.
SO if each person was given one sample, 32 people would have been exposed to unsafe levels of the pesticide – an event that has been strictly tied to a spectrum of disorders beginning with attention/learning deficits in childhood and progressing to neuro-degenerative conditions [like Parkinson’s] later in life.
If you are one of the 32 people …you may start to question the EPA’s thought process, yes?
Even if you aren’t, keep in mind that was ONE sample on ONE day.
Perhaps tomorrow you are one of the 32.
Or should I say, 31.
The real world is not confined to a controlled laboratory.
Is it just me or would it it be a lot more helpful if scientists are going to spend their time researching that they actually work with Governing bodies to publish the information in a way that values health instead of bank accounts?
But alas, lots of money to be saved using all those pesticides [increased crop yields, etc*]; lots of money to be made on all those pharmaceuticals to treat those spectrum symptoms I mentioned…
I know, I know you thought that pesticides were a thing of the past… what with DDT gone some 42 years ago at this point… sadly no.
I mean, well yes, DDT is off the shelves, but we just replaced it with something else.
A little something called Organophosphates.
MMMMM organophosphates – organic pesticides, how….green!
Oh yes, I will drive my Prius over to the factory right now and thank them personally.
Don’t be fooled my dear readers.
It may have the word “organo” [no this is not Spanish for organ] in it but they are anything but. Organophosphates are a by-product of WWII where they were used as nerve agents. That’s right… that warm, fuzzy feeling you get isn’t because it’s organic, that’s the feeling of your acetylcholine neurotransmissions being blocked and your nervous system being hacked warfare-style.
Oh, and also, a few others studies are confirming that in-utero contact with these organophosphates [meaning, the mom came into contact with them through food/water] has been linked to disturbances in testosterone and estrogen production for the unborn baby. Laure Vandenberg of Tufts University Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology reviewed 800+ of these in-utero type cases and had this to say, “Chemicals that mimic hormones, even in low doses, can have a profound effect on the biology of our bodies”.
The hormone disruption was so extreme in some animal studies that the animals were literally turned into hermaphrodites bearing both male and female reproductive organs.
While direct animal to human comparisons can’t [and shouldn’t] be made, when you consider the size differential of brains between say frogs and humans – it could just be a dispersion issue and humans chronically exposed for say 40+ yrs could develop increased symptomology that shows up in just a few months in the frogs….Yes? Either way, any sort of [involuntary] chemical-induced hormonal disturbance should be seen a red flag.
Unfortunately, it rarely is.
Most case studies that show adverse effect on animals are not removed from the market until they can be confirmed to be comparably lethal to humans.
I’m not going to call PETA, but it does sort of beg the question as to why even bother if we end up testing humans anyways and it has to go badly [aka severe health deficits, possibly death] before change is considered. I’m thinking… if the rats keel over and the male frog gets a vagina… it’s probably not good long term for any living, breathing thing on Earth. Unless we all wanted to just be able to reproduce by ourselves.
No more alimony, though.
While you are contemplating the pros of cons of having sex with yourself, let me just share one last thing – a quick supermarket guide to show the foods most commonly sprayed with pesticides that you may want to consider buying organic or washing really well.
Or both. Those hands that put all those peaches on display could have just …
* In case you are thinking “but we need those crop yields! There are starving people! If we lost even more crops to insects, how would we feed all those starving people???”.
My dear Reader. It is a misappropriation of food we have. Not a scarcity. We feed more food to Livestock than is generated from the Livestock.
p.s. Whose idea was that? That’s like when I found out it costs 5.7cents to manufacture a $1 bill. So right off the bat it is only worth 94.3 cents.