15 ms·
More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies
- shdh 8y agoPlastics and pesticides
- devmunchies 8y agoboth of which should be illegal. (at least banning plastics for single-use items)
- stillbourne 8y agoSola dosis facit venenum. It's not about that its there, its about how much there is. My guess is not enough to warrant the effort it took to write this article.
- john-radio 8y agoThank god we have you here to guess!
- reallydude 8y agoAnd you to second guess? The burden of proof is on the assertion.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sushisushisushi 8y agoThe assertion that needs to be proven is "pesticides in the amounts that currently exist in the food supply chain do not have adverse effects on human health," wise guy.
- ben509 8y agoUnless discussion is just going to be about scoring points, the burden of proof is on anyone who is intellectually curious.
- stillbourne 8y agohttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
- lostmsu 8y agoWell, he guessed correctly. They walk really hard around the topic to never mention the numbers.
- stillbourne 8y agoSkepticism is dead.
- dictum 8y agoSkepticism is a rather paradoxical word/concept to imply trust-by-default.
- stillbourne 8y agoSkepticism doesn't imply trust-by-default. This article is an example of the shoddy work that is often performed by bad science "journalists" and used by the Chemophobic to push bullshit such as essential oils, naturopathic medicines, and MLM crapware. If you can't recognize that this is bad journalism that's not my fault. Its not that I "trust" the herbicide/pesticide companies that produce and manufacture these chemicals. Its that there exists a body of evidence that shows "most" of these chemicals to be safe. When the evidence changes to show that the chemical is not safe, what the mechanism is that causes the safety issue and presents data to back that up, I will change my mind. Because that is how falsifiablity works. It is not trust by default. It is rather that, to the best of our ability, with the science and techniques that are currently available, we cannot find an issue with this substance. When the science changes and new things are learned about our biology and how chemicals interact with our body and we re-evaluate those criteria based on those findings then we change the science. This article... is not that.
- DTrejo 8y agoStillbourne, you seem to have a lot of trust in science funded by chemical companies. Remember how tobacco companies lied about the health impact of cigarettes?
- stillbourne 8y agoYes, let us thank the anthropomorphic deity that science has a discipline called Chemistry with a subdiscipline called Toxicology where we don't have to guess about these things. All hail the LD50 and likewise the LC50 so that we no longer have to engage in blatant chemophobia.
- KidComputer 8y agoYeah neither of those metrics are by which we measure the effects of carcinogens and endocrine disruptors.
- stillbourne 8y agoI am sorry I didn't include the every caveat to the massive body of Toxicology/Carcinogenicity in my anecdotal witticism designed to be a snide dismissal of an idiot response to a stupid article.
- fencepost 8y agoIt's not about that its there, its about how much there is. Yes and no. In the intentional absence of published studies on the impact on mammals of most pesticides, we're left with little to go on except presence. Yes, I do mean to imply that there are studies on potential health impacts that are privately funded and conducted by manufacturers that we will never see, much as there were studies of smoking done by tobacco companies and studies of global warming done by oil companies.
- coldtea 8y agoYeah, everything is perfect in modern food industry nutrients and dangerous non-food crap substances-wise...
- ben509 8y agoBodies have evolved to deal with crap substances through metabolism and excretion, so it just has to be Good Enough. If you live to 85 and get cancer, by all means try and figure out how to deal with the cancer, but a positive mindset would also appreciate that you lived to 85.
- cies 8y ago> Bodies have evolved to deal with crap substances through metabolism and excretion, so it just has to be Good Enough. Bodies had no time to evolve to deal with modern pesticides. Any idea what time evolution takes to do what it does? > a positive mindset would also appreciate that you lived to 85. I think that's besides the point. Because that does not rule out that getting older i.e. losing from a disease later in life is not in some other way advantageous. What if, consumers can add 5 years on average to our lives by eating exclusively organic produce, and we can also show that organic production harms nature significantly less, should we not move on use this wisdom to kill off some cash cows for an ugly-ass "agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation"?
- ben509 8y ago> Bodies had no time to evolve to deal with modern pesticides. Any idea what time evolution takes to do what it does? Sure, some people can't handle lactose, they have different responses to booze, etc. But, broadly, our bodies have much more general mechanisms to deal with contaminants, which is why our DNA is vastly simpler than plants that can't simply get up and move but must be able to survive in whatever toxins or pests are around them. > I think that's besides the point. > What if, consumers can add 5 years on average to our lives by eating exclusively organic produce... Say it's smoking, since that probably is on the order of 5 years. No doubt, the smart thing to do is to quit. If you thought organic farming made cows happy, that's a good reason, too. If you think you benefit or you're doing something to make the world better, go for it, that makes sense. What I noticed is you say "eating exclusively organic" and the GP wrote (sarcastically) "everything is perfect in modern food industry". I think that binary view indicates an underlying assumption that our bodies must be pure, which dates back to the oldest religious practices; halal, kosher, etc. That's not crazy, we should obviously keep ourselves clean and avoid poisonous stuff. But your body is a host to all kinds of relatively benign parasites, your own stomach ferments a tiny bit of alcohol, you're stuck eating and breathing in all kinds of crap. And I think that's my dispute: the world isn't pure, nature isn't pure, our bodies aren't pure. Which is why I'm more inclined to focus on the time I am alive than worry about a few extra years I could have squeezed out if I'd jumped on the latest health craze. > ... should we not move on use this wisdom to kill off some cash cows for an ugly-ass "agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation"? If we can get the prices on organic food down to where we can feed cities without famines, sure.
- hinkley 8y agoHave you forgotten the PBA studies already? Microdoses of some compounds can interrupt signaling in the endocrine system. We don’t know which yet, but we know the phenomenon exists. A cautious person would assume that lack of proof (or more accurately, lack of information proving or disproving) doesn’t mean lack of harm.
- stillbourne 8y agoI am not familiar with those studies would you mind linking them or referencing the doi? I have a subscription to most science journals so I can read anything you link usually without additional cost.
- hinkley 8y agoOops, that's a typo. BPA is the acronym I meant. I think a google for "endocrine disruption BPA" will turn up a lot of material.
- devmunchies 8y agoIs it possible to grow enough food in your backyard to live off of (plus chickens as a yard waste disposal) if you also work full time? I can't even eat at a restaurant without knowing if they use organic produce.
- Deestan 8y agoOrganic produce uses tons of pesticides some of which are really nasty (but hey it's "natural" copper sulfate), so that's not a solution to anything.
- coldtea 8y agoDepends on the organic produce.
- devmunchies 8y agoi thought organic by definition meant that it didn't use pesticides.
- wpasc 8y agoNo it just means that it uses a particular subset of pesticides and follows certain parameters. Many people will argue that its just a nonsense credential while others will say "better than nothing". I personally count myself in the latter
- jerf 8y agoIt depends on the definition of "organic". No sarcasm. There are many. And there is definitely a certain amount of deliberate equivocation whereby the product is labeled as "organic" according to one of the "weaker" standards and they expect you to read the word "organic" as one of the stronger ones, like "no pesticides at all".
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mamon 8y ago
- sbzodnsbd 8y agoOnly 90?? What does the other 10 do to avoid pesticides????
- jacquesc 8y agoMaybe 1/10 Americans only eat meat and over processed grains. They have different problems.
- goda90 8y agoMaybe they've mutated to be better at breaking down and ejecting the pesticides from their bodies? Or they live in remote communes where they grow all their own foods.
- sbzodnsbd 8y ago10% of Americans do not eat their own food exclusively. I think it’s more likely that 10% buy exclusively organic, and that the organic label is more honest than I thought. But that stretches the imagination too (do these high income individuals not eat out???)
- cesnja 8y agoThe article doesn't mention meat and dairy as a source of surprisingly high levels pesticides and their byproducts. [1] https://medium.com/center-for-biological-diversity/does-meat-contain-pesticides-c587f6b252e7 https://medium.com/center-for-biological-diversity/does-meat...
- fencepost 8y agoThat's what happens when you're effectively an apex predator - you eat the things that eat the things with contamination and much of it gets concentrated into you, particularly the things that bioaccumulate over time. Outside of pesticides but similar, that's why it's important to limit things like tuna consumption particularly from larger species that can build to high mercury levels.
- beenBoutIT 8y agoIIRC, there has never been a case of mercury toxicity from normal consumption of commercial seafood recorded in any American medical journal. These larger species you mention could exist outside of that sphere.
- jdietrich 8y agoDefine "normal consumption". Some bodybuilders and strength athletes eat large quantities of tuna as a low-fat source of protein; a non-trivial proportion of dieters rely on fish as their main source of protein. These may be unusually high levels of consumption, but they aren't edge cases and aren't prima facie stupid if you're unaware of the risk of mercury toxicity. A lot of smart, health-conscious people end up with dangerously high levels of mercury precisely because they believe that seafood is a healthy option and aren't aware of the risk of mercury exposure. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12676623/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12676623/
- idontpost 8y agoLiterally on the first page of google results for "mercury toxicity from normal consumption of commercial seafood": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4721310/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4721310/ Cites dozens of studies of cases of adverse effects from mercury from seafood.
- pepijndevos 8y agoI wonder if organic food is any better. I recall reading they use much more "natural" pesticides on organic produce. Is growing your own stuff in a backyard I don't have really the only way to avoid pesticides?
- ip26 8y agoMost of what I've seen has shown that it is indeed better, although not perfect. E.g. glyphosate is detectable in organic wine, but at much lower levels (5x?) compared to regular wine.
- solotronics 8y agoI wonder if wine from the EU is better at having less pesticides?
- jillesvangurp 8y agoLots of small wine producers across Europe differentiate by producing grapes using organic farming. If you are competing on quality, using a lot of pesticides might not be the best idea here. Competition is pretty strong and super markets tend to have a decent selection on their shelves where I live. Prices are not noticably higher. You can buy some OK organic wines for around 5 euros here in Germany. IMHO having a lot of pesticides in the food chain is probably not a great idea. Even if it is probably fine, why take the chance? Finding out we're wrong might take decades.
- hammock 8y agoThe EU has a far shorter list of approved pesticides than the US. Whether that translates to "less pesticides" is unclear but hopefully it at least translates to "less harm."
- hammock 8y agoGlyphosate is not approved for organic use so that's an irrelevant point. Whether total pesticide load (however you want to measure that) is higher or lower for organic vs conventional, varies widely with crop, location and farming method. There are toxic organic pesticides like copper-based compounds that persist in the soil. And things like strawberry fields are fumigated with methyl bromide regardless of organic or conventional. There is not perfect data on the harmfulness of many synthetic pesticides, so it's really hard to make a great judgment on whether it's worse or better for you - unless you have general faith that petroleum derived mystery cocktails are pretty much always going to be harmful. It's all bad when it comes down to it, we should prefer something like permaculture.
- Illniyar 8y agoIs this supposed to be novel in some way that I'm missing? Of course you have chemicals in your body which are heavily sprayed on your food.
- standardUser 8y agoI just see it as a reminder that our food production system is set up in such a way that it is almost impossible not to regularly consume poison. Similar to the occasional article that reminds us, yes, the animals we eat were unnecessarily tortured before they made it to our plate.
- geddy 8y agoWatched a great documentary on Netflix called `Stink!` that was about all the crap found in all sorts of products under the hidden phrase "fragrance" (or in some cases, "parfum"). All sorts of chemicals you've never heard of to make those garbage bags smell like apple orchards. Very informative and, if you're like me and are constantly panicked that everything's trying to kill you, I recommend it.
- rubicon33 8y agoCurious about this part: > Very informative and, if you're like me and are constantly panicked that everything's trying to kill you, I recommend it. So are you saying this will help me STOP worrying that everything is trying to kill me? I'm kinda to the point where I feel like if you aren't eating organic broccoli for breakfast lunch and dinner, than you're killing yourself. So I'm not sure I need any MORE information to enforce that.
- geddy 8y agoI was unclear about this - yes, if you're prone to worrying about everything trying to kill you, `Stink!` will not make that any better. Quite worse in fact, as (assuming you're like me) I now skim all the ingredient lists on deodorants and shampoos and what-not for this "fragrance" offender. Regarding the broccoli, I'm right there with ya. `Stink!` won't help, but it's not super negative and will simply make you more aware.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoThe reality of the situation is that living will eventually kill you someday. It's merely a matter of how quickly you get there and how much you suffer along the way.
- munk-a 8y agoThis is a terrible viewpoint, life should be an enjoyable experience and if people (or pesticide companies) are lowering that enjoyment we as a society should act and throw heaps of regulations to force a better outcome. I have no pity for any profit margin that even comes close to my care for our collective enjoyment of life.
- modzu 8y agoaka, food. do you eat it?
- LockNess0 8y agoIts funny that so many people are against vaccinations, but pesticides, chemical residues and phthalates gather little mass interest or outrage. You can to an extent avoid vaccination, even though they are beneficial - but you cannot avoid all of these industrial and agricultural byproducts, and they most certainly have a negative effect on you and your children.
- noobermin 8y agoIf the US government is willing to directly subsidize corporate farms with corn subsidies, the least they can do is regulate them.
- maxxxxx 8y agototally agree. If subsidies are given then the it should be possible to tell farms to go organic or whatever.
- korethr 8y agoOkay, this Environmental Working Group found traces of pesticides on produce. That's not terribly unexpected, given how most produce is, well, produced. What this article annoyingly neglects to mention, is the _numbers_ attached to those traces of pesticides. Where there large amounts of trace chemicals, such that the levels exceed the EPA's recommended safe exposure levels? Were they so high that dangerous levels of bio-accumulation were likely? Absent numbers, it's difficult to tell if the people mentioned in the article are justified in feeling very worried, if it's a bunch of hand-wringing about nothing of significance, or somewhere between.
- astrea 8y agoAlso worth noting the EWG's reports have been questioned in the past for their bias. Heck, even the type of report this article mentions is commonly criticized: https://www.accountablescience.com/how-dirty-are-your-fruits-and-veggies/ https://www.accountablescience.com/how-dirty-are-your-fruits...
- korethr 8y agoThere's another factor that I think the OP fails to account for and that's washing produce before cooking and consumption. It's a habit I've been in for as long as I can recall cooking with produce, which I probably picked up from my parents, and have seen in just about every kitchen I've been in. As far as I recall, it was less out of a concern over pesticide residue, but more to make sure all soil was removed from the produce before consumption. That latter point is very important! It _sucks_ to bite into a grain of sand when eating a salad because I neglected to wash the lettuce well. And even if the trace levels of pesticides were close to the unsafe chronic threshold, washing the produce to remove remaining trace dirt is, IMO, likely to take those trace levels of pesticides down far enough that I don't need to worry.
- primroot 8y agoEver heard of systemic pesticides? "Pesticides can be classified based upon their biological mechanism function or application method. Most pesticides work by poisoning pests. A systemic pesticide moves inside a plant following absorption by the plant. With insecticides and most fungicides, this movement is usually upward (through the xylem) and outward. Increased efficiency may be a result. Systemic insecticides, which poison pollen and nectar in the flowers, may kill bees and other needed pollinators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide
- mirimir 8y agoHuman milk could not be sold commercially, because levels of many contaminants exceed legal limits. And ironically, indigenous peoples in the far north have among the highest levels. Because they live in a global cold trap.
- maerF0x0 8y agoAt this point it becomes difficult to find a proper control group for testing the absence of these items.
- SN76477 8y agowhat causes cancer though?
- tzs 8y agoOne problem is that we usually take the easy approach to designing pesticides. They tend to be poisonous to a wide variety of animals, instead of just to the specific pests we are actually trying to kill. Then we have to come up with some way to try to keep things other than the pests from getting exposed. Maybe we try to make it break down into something safe before it gets farther up the food chain. Maybe we make it so it washes off easily so cleaning the food is good enough (and hopefully we do something sensible with the runoff from that washing...). There's another way, but it takes a lot more work and so it isn't done much. This is to study each specific insect you want to control, to develop a deep understanding of its life cycle. You identify the hormones that are involved in regulating and timing the life cycle. You then make your pesticide based on those hormones, so that when exposed to it the insect's life cycle gets messed up. For example, suppose you've got an insect that mates and lays eggs during the warmer part of summer, and you find that the eggs need that heat to develop and hatch. Identify the hormones that regulate that, and you might be able to make a pesticide that causes that insect to lay its eggs too early, and the next generation dies out. The beauty of this approach is that since the hormone your pesticide is based on already occurs naturally in your target insects, whatever is above them in the food chain has already evolved to not be bothered by it. All you are doing is messing with the timing of it in the insect, not its existence. So that hormone based pesticides are inherently much much safer than the general poison based pesticides. But as I said, this is more expensive. Each species is probably going to require a pesticide specifically for it. This would probably take several PhD entomologists per species working for years. If you do study a given insect and its life cycle to that extent, you also might be able to learn to control it without pesticides, especially in the case of invasive insects. For example, lets say you've got an invasive moth that is attacking your crops and devastating them. In its native habitat, that moth's population is kept in check by parasitic wasps that lay their eggs in the moth's larvae. You might be able to deal with the invasive moths by importing those wasps. But you only would want to try that if you knew enough about the wasps to know that they would not become a problem too. If you know that the wasps only lay eggs on the larvae of that one moth species, great...bring a ton of the wasps, they'll wipe out the moths, and then the wasps won't have any place for their eggs and they die too. Something like this was actually tried once, with an invasion of some Florida pest attacking California citrus groves. They brought in the wasps (or whatever--I don't actually remember if it was wasps, or something else)...and the wasps all died without harming the moths. Later, they figured out that what they had thought was one species of parasitic wasps was really two very similar species, and only one of those two would control the particular pest they were trying to eliminate. There were only something like two parasitic wasp experts in the whole US at the time, and there are an unbelievable number of different parasitic wasp species so most of them have never been studied extensively.
- perl4ever 8y agoAssuming pesticides are widespread and pervasive, it seems rather improbable to suggest that up to 10% of Americans don't have trace amounts of pesticides. Is there anyone who doesn't have, for instance, uranium, in their bodies?
- Grue3 8y agoI'll go you one better, 100% of Americans have chemicals in their bodies, such as dihydrogen monoxide which causes certain death if inhaled in sufficient quantities.
- throw16383 8y agoI'm a farmer from the UK and have an agronomist who advises us on pesticide applications. He visited the USA and said, when he stepped into their spray sheds, it was like going back in time 40 years: all kinds of chemicals that have been banned in the UK were still allowed in the USA (organophosphates etc). Of course if the article doesn't state the amount of pesticides found, it doesn't tell you anything really, but I wouldn't trust American food standards based on my anecdotal experience, flawed may it be.