Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides

The supernaturally rational adherents to the Skeptic religion irk me. And it's not because I disagree with all their stances. On many issues, they're right. But the systematic, overarching, a priori denial of the viability of anything that even sniffs of "alternative" health is ridiculous. I'm not even annoyed at how they deride the ancestral health movement. What really gets me is their flippant dismissal of the potential risks of agricultural pesticides.
One article in particular, from Slate in 2012, exemplifies the sloppy, dangerous thinking on the subject. On the surface, it's quite reasonable, persuasive, and it hits all the marks.

The author is a former organic fanatic for whom "organic was a synonym for edible" - so she's been to the other side and knows how they think. She was swayed by the evidence. She's no paid agro-shill.

She "[dug] into the literature" and "[talked] to toxicologists, horticulturists, risk experts, and nutritionists," those gatekeepers of human knowledge. The all-powerful experts, infallible and untainted by conflicts of interest.

She dismisses the nutritional differences between organic and conventional produce, graciously allowing that the former "may" have fewer nitrates and more vitamin C and completely ignoring the evidence that shows major differences in other important nutrients.

She claims that "organic produce has pesticides too!" and focuses on rotenone, an organic pesticide that's more toxic by weight than many synthetics and which organic food is presumably swimming in. Good thing organic farms in the United States aren't actually allowed to use rotenone on their crops.

She's unable to find solid numbers on pesticide residues on organic produce, concluding that "yes, organic produce can be pesticide-tainted, too." Luckily, solid numbers do exist and organic produce is far less likely to be "tainted."

But there's another, maybe larger problem underlying this article and others like it: the unflappable acceptance of the Environmental Protection Agency's safety assessments for synthetic pesticide intakes. You see, before pesticide manufacturers can sell their products in the United States, the EPA "must evaluate the pesticides thoroughly" to ensure they're safe for humans and the environment. They then use this data to determine the ADI - the acceptable daily intake - for each pesticide. If a pesticide is being legally used in the United States, you have the authorities' assurance that it's totally safe.

I wish I could agree with them. I'd end the post here, leaving you snuggled up with the EPA's cozy assurances that everything is going to be okay, you don't need to waste money in the organic aisle, and you can stop bothering those nice vendors at the farmer's market with silly questions about pesticide usage. But I'm afraid I can't do that in good conscience.

Those EPA safety assessments have a few shortcomings. A recent paper highlights the weaknesses in the current regulatory environment surrounding pesticides in this country:

Pesticide manufacturers conduct the studies that produce most of the data the EPA uses to assess the pesticides.

In theory, the EPA accepts safety data culled from independently-funded pesticide studies, but the independent studies rarely satisfy the stringent and expensive eligibility requirements. The EPA works with the pesticide industry to establish these requirements, including study designs and methodologies that are often prohibitively expensive for non-industry researchers to fulfill (PDF). This usually leaves industry-funded research as the only viable options for inclusion and consideration. And industry-funded studies almost always get results that are favorable to industry. For instance, the easiest way to predict whether atrazine (an herbicide commonly used on corn and sugarcane) has biological effects in a study is to look at the funding source.

This constitutes a clear conflict of interest. It's not incontrovertible proof of collusion or malfeasance, but it makes me uneasy.

Commercial pesticide formulations aren't representative of the isolated active principles being tested in safety studies.

Pesticides aren't just single chemicals. Commercially, they're actually collections of various chemicals called formulations. These formulations contain the declared active principle, which is what the safety studies test, and adjuvants, which are supposedly inert and therefore safe. You know how toothpaste has active and inactive ingredients? Same thing here. Just like the supposedly inactive ingredients in toothpaste can have some physiologically significant effects, the adjuvants in pesticide formulations can alter the effect of the active principles.

Adjuvants aren't included in pesticide formulations for the heck of it, you know. They perform important roles. Some are surfactants that, when included in a pesticide formulation, allow the pesticide to penetrate the cellular walls of insects, fungus, plants, and other pests. Others act as thickeners, emulsifiers, and anti-condensates that improve the distribution and resiliency of the pesticide. They can help pesticides resist rain, runoff, and evaporation. Adjuvants increase dermal absorption of pesticides, too. They are penetrants, remember? In other words, they make pesticides more effective, more resilient, and more damaging to pests; otherwise, they wouldn't be included. And according to a recent paper, many adjuvants also amplify the toxic effects of pesticides on human health.

Using isolated human cells, the researchers compared the effects of nine popular pesticide formulations with those of their isolated principle ingredients on mitochondrial activity and membrane degradation. In 8 out of 9 instances, the commercial formulations were on average hundreds of times more toxic than the principle alone. The fungicides were the most toxic, followed by the herbicides, then the insecticides (which were comparatively less toxic). Of the herbicides, the extremely popular Roundup was 125 times more toxic than glyphosate, its principle ingredient.

The worst part of all this: most of the safety tests study the active principle, not the full pesticide formulation. This isn't a new problem, either. As far back as 2006, researchers were questioning the logic behind allowing largely untested adjuvants into the food system via regulatory backdoors. This should be a no-brainer. If you're assessing the toxicity of Roundup (Monsanto's popular herbicide that goes on absolutely everything these days, from soybeans to your city parks), you have to actually test the toxicity threshold of Roundup - not just glyphosate. Right?

Pesticide safety studies rarely account for synergy between multiple pesticides.

Real world pesticide exposure doesn't resemble laboratory pesticide exposure. We're not exposed to one pesticide and given sufficient time to excrete it. We're exposed to dozens of them, often all at once, in uncontrolled environments. Could the EPA be underestimating the cumulative effects of multiple pesticides? There's evidence, at least in animal studies using coho salmon, honeybees, and rats that certain pesticides may be synergistic; when combined, their effects become greater than the sum of their parts. I don't see why humans would be exempt from the effects of pesticide synergy.

If the effects of exposure to multiple pesticides were merely additive, that'd be one thing. We could tally up our exposures for each, compare them to the ADI, do a bit of simple arithmetic, spend several days trawling the pesticide literature for human health effects, and know where we stand. But if the effects of multiple pesticides are synergistic, if the effects are greater than the sum of the parts, we can't rely on addition or the EPA's assessments. Sure, you'd have to evaluate pesticide synergy on a case-by-case basis, and it's going to be incredibly resource-intensive, but it must be done if we want accurate ADIs for pesticides.

Okay. What now?

Frozen with fear? Frantically purging your kitchen of all conventional foods? Don't. That wasn't my intent. Babies (including the yet-to-be-born) and children should probably go as organic as they can, just because of the unknown and potentially large effects pesticide exposure has on developing systems. Pregnant women, too. And if you eat a lot of these 9 foods, go organic as often as possible because they contain high levels of pesticide residue. But we all need to eat food, and eating conventional produce is healthier than eating none at all. Besides, there are plenty of non-organic foods that you can safely eat.

I just wanted to temper the unflappable faith many people seem to have in the experts, the institutions, the agencies. I wanted to get people talking and thinking. The EPA doesn't deal in absolute truth; they miss an awful lot, either out of ignorance or because they're looking the other way. No one does. I certainly don't. If you meet someone claiming to have all the answer(s)? Run.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-i...#axzz3I8RBfPXu

On 04/11/2014 1:50 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>

I don't trust cranky, unaffiliated articles on the internet, especially
when they're anything to do with "organic vs. non-organic", "Big Pharma"
and vaccines, homeopathy and other forms of squit, twaddle and bunkum.
Graham

"graham" > wrote in message
...
> On 04/11/2014 1:50 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>>
>
> I don't trust cranky, unaffiliated articles on the internet, especially
> when they're anything to do with "organic vs. non-organic", "Big Pharma"
> and vaccines, homeopathy and other forms of squit, twaddle and bunkum.


Now, come on Graham, just tell us how you really feel ... ;-)



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 3:11:58 PM UTC-6, graham wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 1:50 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> > Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
> >
>
> I don't trust cranky, unaffiliated articles on the internet, especially
> when they're anything to do with "organic vs. non-organic", "Big Pharma"
> and vaccines, homeopathy and other forms of squit, twaddle and bunkum.
>>
Anyone who believes in homeopathy shouldn't breed. We have enough stupid
people.
>
> Graham

--Bryan

On 04/11/2014 2:23 PM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 3:11:58 PM UTC-6, graham wrote:
>> On 04/11/2014 1:50 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>>>
>>
>> I don't trust cranky, unaffiliated articles on the internet, especially
>> when they're anything to do with "organic vs. non-organic", "Big Pharma"
>> and vaccines, homeopathy and other forms of squit, twaddle and bunkum.
>>>
> Anyone who believes in homeopathy shouldn't breed. We have enough stupid
> people.
>>
There was a case in Calgary recently where a child died from an infection
that could have been cured by antibiotics.
The Mother used homeopathic nostrums (water) as, inter alia, she didn't
trust "Big Pharma".
The trouble is that there are far too many out there that think like her.
Graham

On 04/11/2014 2:44 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 21:14:45 -0000, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "graham" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 04/11/2014 1:50 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>>> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't trust cranky, unaffiliated articles on the internet, especially
>>> when they're anything to do with "organic vs. non-organic", "Big Pharma"
>>> and vaccines, homeopathy and other forms of squit, twaddle and bunkum.
>>
>>
>> Now, come on Graham, just tell us how you really feel ... ;-)
>
> Yes, I thought his response was pretty wishy washy
>
I'm still seething a bit from a heated discussion I had at coffee today.
A young guy averred that his mother was cured of stage 4 rectal cancer
by using herbal remedies.
Of course, he was also of the opinion that "Big Pharma" had the cure for
cancer (note the singular) but chose not to release it as there was no
money in it for them.
Graham

I think that even in doses several times the allowed limit, they are
probably good for you.

On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 1:11:58 PM UTC-8, graham wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 1:50 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> > Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
> >
>
> I don't trust cranky, unaffiliated articles on the internet, especially
> when they're anything to do with "organic vs. non-organic", "Big Pharma"
> and vaccines, homeopathy and other forms of squit, twaddle and bunkum.
> Graham




If you follow the link you will see that every thing he talked about is linked to a study. The linked text won't show up here. That is why I posted the link to the actual article.

On 11/4/2014 4:51 PM, graham wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 2:23 PM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 3:11:58 PM UTC-6, graham wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2014 1:50 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>>> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't trust cranky, unaffiliated articles on the internet, especially
>>> when they're anything to do with "organic vs. non-organic", "Big Pharma"
>>> and vaccines, homeopathy and other forms of squit, twaddle and bunkum.
>>>>
>> Anyone who believes in homeopathy shouldn't breed. We have enough stupid
>> people.
>>>
> There was a case in Calgary recently where a child died from an infection
> that could have been cured by antibiotics.
> The Mother used homeopathic nostrums (water) as, inter alia, she didn't
> trust "Big Pharma".
> The trouble is that there are far too many out there that think like her.
> Graham

Homeopathy has a place. Like getting rid of dandruff.
Real disease is better treated with real medicine.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/4/2014 4:51 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 04/11/2014 2:23 PM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 3:11:58 PM UTC-6, graham wrote:
>>>> On 04/11/2014 1:50 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>>>> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't trust cranky, unaffiliated articles on the internet, especially
>>>> when they're anything to do with "organic vs. non-organic", "Big
>>>> Pharma"
>>>> and vaccines, homeopathy and other forms of squit, twaddle and bunkum.
>>>>>
>>> Anyone who believes in homeopathy shouldn't breed. We have enough
>>> stupid
>>> people.
>>>>
>> There was a case in Calgary recently where a child died from an infection
>> that could have been cured by antibiotics.
>> The Mother used homeopathic nostrums (water) as, inter alia, she didn't
>> trust "Big Pharma".
>> The trouble is that there are far too many out there that think like her.
>> Graham
>
> Homeopathy has a place. Like getting rid of dandruff.
> Real disease is better treated with real medicine.

I have found some homeopathic things to work. Others didn't do a thing.
Then again, maybe if I hadn't used the homeopathic things, the condition
would have cleared up on its own. I can't use most of them anyway since the
pill form almost always contains dairy. There are a few companies that make
sprays that you spray under the tongue. But they are only for certain
conditions and not usually conditions that I have.

I do think that antibiotics are widely overused but they also have their
place. Something like that is not something I would use homeopathy on. I
might use it on a skin rash though.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 12:50:05 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags wrote:
>
>> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>
> <yawn>
>
> More media scaremongering by the resident troll that can only post
> quack articles and NEVER has an opinion of her own to add.
>
> -sw

Her? I thought this person was a guy!

Of course I would prefer not to eat pesticides. And for a time, I tried
only to buy organic. Until the time came when I really couldn't afford to
do that. And then I began reading stories (I didn't bother to read this
one) about how no matter how careful they are, stuff that we don't want is
still getting into our food. So I went back to buying whatever looked best
and/or was cheaper. Organic rarely looks best. And in the grocery stores
is often not the freshest or the cheapest.

But now that I am getting the CSA packages again, I am getting organic.
Sadly this can not be all of the produce that I buy because they offer only
limited things. This week I was looking forward to getting watermelon
radishes only to find out that they had subbed in two turnips. Oh snap. I
already had part of a turnip in the fridge and I am the only one who eats
turnips, I think. Not sure if husband likes them but I think I will find a
recipe for cooking them and see if he does.

So today I bought celery, green onions, white and large sweet onions, baby
carrots, and both green and red bell peppers. None of them organic. I know
that bell peppers are always on that top 10 or top 12 list of foods that you
*should* buy organic but any time I do find organic ones, they are mushy and
expensive. I also have a goodly store of dried ones stocked up for the
winter. I only use those for cooking though.

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 21:14:45 -0000, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"graham" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 04/11/2014 1:50 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>>> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't trust cranky, unaffiliated articles on the internet, especially
>>> when they're anything to do with "organic vs. non-organic", "Big Pharma"
>>> and vaccines, homeopathy and other forms of squit, twaddle and bunkum.
>>
>>
>>Now, come on Graham, just tell us how you really feel ... ;-)
>
> Yes, I thought his response was pretty wishy washy

lol

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"graham" > wrote in message
...
> On 04/11/2014 2:44 PM, wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 21:14:45 -0000, "Ophelia"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "graham" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 04/11/2014 1:50 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>>>> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't trust cranky, unaffiliated articles on the internet, especially
>>>> when they're anything to do with "organic vs. non-organic", "Big
>>>> Pharma"
>>>> and vaccines, homeopathy and other forms of squit, twaddle and bunkum.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, come on Graham, just tell us how you really feel ... ;-)
>>
>> Yes, I thought his response was pretty wishy washy
>>
> I'm still seething a bit from a heated discussion I had at coffee today. A
> young guy averred that his mother was cured of stage 4 rectal cancer by
> using herbal remedies.

Yeah right!!!

> Of course, he was also of the opinion that "Big Pharma" had the cure for
> cancer (note the singular) but chose not to release it as there was no
> money in it for them.
> Graham

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 11:16:00 PM UTC-8, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 12:50:05 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags wrote:
>
> > Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>
> <yawn>
>
> More media scaremongering by the resident troll that can only post
> quack articles and NEVER has an opinion of her own to add.
>
> -sw

I express an opinion when I post the article.
You obviously didn't bother to read it or follow any links.

Besides, I thought you killfiled me, why are you jumping in to be insulting?

On 04/11/2014 9:48 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 11/4/2014 4:51 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 04/11/2014 2:23 PM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 3:11:58 PM UTC-6, graham wrote:
>>>> On 04/11/2014 1:50 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>>>> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't trust cranky, unaffiliated articles on the internet, especially
>>>> when they're anything to do with "organic vs. non-organic", "Big
>>>> Pharma"
>>>> and vaccines, homeopathy and other forms of squit, twaddle and bunkum.
>>>>>
>>> Anyone who believes in homeopathy shouldn't breed. We have enough
>>> stupid
>>> people.
>>>>
>> There was a case in Calgary recently where a child died from an infection
>> that could have been cured by antibiotics.
>> The Mother used homeopathic nostrums (water) as, inter alia, she didn't
>> trust "Big Pharma".
>> The trouble is that there are far too many out there that think like her.
>> Graham
>
> Homeopathy has a place. Like getting rid of dandruff.

Only if you mix shampoo with it!

> Real disease is better treated with real medicine.
+1
Graham

"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
...
Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides

My opinion? love them...

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 4:14:55 PM UTC-8, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 08:32:58 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 11:16:00 PM UTC-8, Sqwertz wrote:
> >> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 12:50:05 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
> >>
> >> <yawn>
> >>
> >> More media scaremongering by the resident troll that can only post
> >> quack articles and NEVER has an opinion of her own to add.
> >
> > I express an opinion when I post the article.
> > You obviously didn't bother to read it or follow any links.
>
> Bull SHIT you did. All you did is copy and paste an article from the
> Web. Not one of those words came from your mouth. Then all you do is
> sit back and read the replies - as if you're waiting for others to
> silently reinforce your thought process.
>
> > Besides, I thought you killfiled me, why are you jumping in to be insulting?
>
> I never said that. I said I blocked you in Facebook.
>
> -sw

You missed my post where I said the article pasted here would not show links and that's why I posted the URL. As for opinion, I agree with the article premise else I would not have posted it. Why should I paraphrase what the article says, you can read.

You know you can state an opinion without being insulting about it. I don't understand why you are so hostile.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 16:51:38 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags
> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 4:14:55 PM UTC-8, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 08:32:58 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 11:16:00 PM UTC-8, Sqwertz wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 12:50:05 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>> >>
>> >> <yawn>
>> >>
>> >> More media scaremongering by the resident troll that can only post
>> >> quack articles and NEVER has an opinion of her own to add.
>> >
>> > I express an opinion when I post the article.
>> > You obviously didn't bother to read it or follow any links.
>>
>> Bull SHIT you did. All you did is copy and paste an article from the
>> Web. Not one of those words came from your mouth. Then all you do is
>> sit back and read the replies - as if you're waiting for others to
>> silently reinforce your thought process.
>>
>> > Besides, I thought you killfiled me, why are you jumping in to be insulting?
>>
>> I never said that. I said I blocked you in Facebook.
>>
>> -sw
>
>You missed my post where I said the article pasted here would not show links and that's why I posted the URL.

Don't waste your time with the turd.

>As for opinion, I agree with the article premise else I would not have posted it.
>Why should I paraphrase what the article says, you can read.
>
>You know you can state an opinion without being insulting about it. I don't understand why you are so hostile.

It's the topic. He defends and loves toxicity in food for some unknown
reason. If you really want to **** him off, makes some negative posts
about Basa fish.

"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
...
> On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 4:14:55 PM UTC-8, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 08:32:58 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 11:16:00 PM UTC-8, Sqwertz wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 12:50:05 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>> >>
>> >> <yawn>
>> >>
>> >> More media scaremongering by the resident troll that can only post
>> >> quack articles and NEVER has an opinion of her own to add.
>> >
>> > I express an opinion when I post the article.
>> > You obviously didn't bother to read it or follow any links.
>>
>> Bull SHIT you did. All you did is copy and paste an article from the
>> Web. Not one of those words came from your mouth. Then all you do is
>> sit back and read the replies - as if you're waiting for others to
>> silently reinforce your thought process.
>>
>> > Besides, I thought you killfiled me, why are you jumping in to be
>> > insulting?
>>
>> I never said that. I said I blocked you in Facebook.
>>
>> -sw
>
> You missed my post where I said the article pasted here would not show
> links and that's why I posted the URL. As for opinion, I agree with the
> article premise else I would not have posted it. Why should I paraphrase
> what the article says, you can read.
>
> You know you can state an opinion without being insulting about it. I
> don't understand why you are so hostile.

Have you ever seen him being kind to anyone?

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 2014-11-06, Sqwertz > wrote:

> were managing to increase the average life expectancy every decade for
> the last 100+ years so we must be doing something right.

Sez you.

I hope you don't mind yer tax dollars being spent --by the billions!
on caring and warehousing these super seniors. The ones that can't
care for themselves or pay for themselves, etc. Many live beyond what
their minds can deal with and they must be cared for, often by younger
families that haven't the finacial resrources to bear such a huge
burden. Many super seniors don't want to survive the pain and
constant discomfort that is old age. I'm not so old I regret living
this long, but I've finally reached that point in time where I relate
to the adage, "Old age isn't for wimps!"

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2014-11-06, Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> were managing to increase the average life expectancy every decade for
>> the last 100+ years so we must be doing something right.
>
> Sez you.

in 1900 the average life expectancy was less than 50 years.

In 1998 it was 73 years or so.

I think that is progress.


>
> I hope you don't mind yer tax dollars being spent --by the billions!
> on caring and warehousing these super seniors. The ones that can't
> care for themselves or pay for themselves, etc. Many live beyond what
> their minds can deal with and they must be cared for, often by younger
> families that haven't the finacial resrources to bear such a huge
> burden. Many super seniors don't want to survive the pain and
> constant discomfort that is old age. I'm not so old I regret living
> this long, but I've finally reached that point in time where I relate
> to the adage, "Old age isn't for wimps!"
>

this is a good point, and why I think this foolishness about getting smokers
to quit is counterproductive. If they want to enjoy their good years and
eliminate some old, bad years, who are we to argue?
>

On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 10:50:10 AM UTC-10, ImStillMags wrote:
> Why I Don't Trust the Acceptable Daily Intake Levels for Pesticides
>
> The supernaturally rational adherents to the Skeptic religion irk me. And it's not because I disagree with all their stances. On many issues, they're right. But the systematic, overarching, a priori denial of the viability of anything that even sniffs of "alternative" health is ridiculous. I'm not even annoyed at how they deride the ancestral health movement. What really gets me is their flippant dismissal of the potential risks of agricultural pesticides.
> One article in particular, from Slate in 2012, exemplifies the sloppy, dangerous thinking on the subject. On the surface, it's quite reasonable, persuasive, and it hits all the marks.
>
> The author is a former organic fanatic for whom "organic was a synonym for edible" - so she's been to the other side and knows how they think. She was swayed by the evidence. She's no paid agro-shill.
>
> She "[dug] into the literature" and "[talked] to toxicologists, horticulturists, risk experts, and nutritionists," those gatekeepers of human knowledge. The all-powerful experts, infallible and untainted by conflicts of interest.
>
> She dismisses the nutritional differences between organic and conventional produce, graciously allowing that the former "may" have fewer nitrates and more vitamin C and completely ignoring the evidence that shows major differences in other important nutrients.
>
> She claims that "organic produce has pesticides too!" and focuses on rotenone, an organic pesticide that's more toxic by weight than many synthetics and which organic food is presumably swimming in. Good thing organic farms in the United States aren't actually allowed to use rotenone on their crops.
>
> She's unable to find solid numbers on pesticide residues on organic produce, concluding that "yes, organic produce can be pesticide-tainted, too." Luckily, solid numbers do exist and organic produce is far less likely to be "tainted."
>
> But there's another, maybe larger problem underlying this article and others like it: the unflappable acceptance of the Environmental Protection Agency's safety assessments for synthetic pesticide intakes. You see, before pesticide manufacturers can sell their products in the United States, the EPA "must evaluate the pesticides thoroughly" to ensure they're safe for humans and the environment. They then use this data to determine the ADI - the acceptable daily intake - for each pesticide. If a pesticide is being legally used in the United States, you have the authorities' assurance that it's totally safe.
>
> I wish I could agree with them. I'd end the post here, leaving you snuggled up with the EPA's cozy assurances that everything is going to be okay, you don't need to waste money in the organic aisle, and you can stop bothering those nice vendors at the farmer's market with silly questions about pesticide usage. But I'm afraid I can't do that in good conscience.
>
> Those EPA safety assessments have a few shortcomings. A recent paper highlights the weaknesses in the current regulatory environment surrounding pesticides in this country:
>
> Pesticide manufacturers conduct the studies that produce most of the data the EPA uses to assess the pesticides.
>
> In theory, the EPA accepts safety data culled from independently-funded pesticide studies, but the independent studies rarely satisfy the stringent and expensive eligibility requirements. The EPA works with the pesticide industry to establish these requirements, including study designs and methodologies that are often prohibitively expensive for non-industry researchers to fulfill (PDF). This usually leaves industry-funded research as the only viable options for inclusion and consideration. And industry-funded studies almost always get results that are favorable to industry. For instance, the easiest way to predict whether atrazine (an herbicide commonly used on corn and sugarcane) has biological effects in a study is to look at the funding source.
>
> This constitutes a clear conflict of interest. It's not incontrovertible proof of collusion or malfeasance, but it makes me uneasy.
>
> Commercial pesticide formulations aren't representative of the isolated active principles being tested in safety studies.
>
> Pesticides aren't just single chemicals. Commercially, they're actually collections of various chemicals called formulations. These formulations contain the declared active principle, which is what the safety studies test, and adjuvants, which are supposedly inert and therefore safe. You know how toothpaste has active and inactive ingredients? Same thing here. Just like the supposedly inactive ingredients in toothpaste can have some physiologically significant effects, the adjuvants in pesticide formulations can alter the effect of the active principles.
>
> Adjuvants aren't included in pesticide formulations for the heck of it, you know. They perform important roles. Some are surfactants that, when included in a pesticide formulation, allow the pesticide to penetrate the cellular walls of insects, fungus, plants, and other pests. Others act as thickeners, emulsifiers, and anti-condensates that improve the distribution and resiliency of the pesticide. They can help pesticides resist rain, runoff, and evaporation. Adjuvants increase dermal absorption of pesticides, too. They are penetrants, remember? In other words, they make pesticides more effective, more resilient, and more damaging to pests; otherwise, they wouldn't be included. And according to a recent paper, many adjuvants also amplify the toxic effects of pesticides on human health.
>
> Using isolated human cells, the researchers compared the effects of nine popular pesticide formulations with those of their isolated principle ingredients on mitochondrial activity and membrane degradation. In 8 out of 9 instances, the commercial formulations were on average hundreds of times more toxic than the principle alone. The fungicides were the most toxic, followed by the herbicides, then the insecticides (which were comparatively less toxic). Of the herbicides, the extremely popular Roundup was 125 times more toxic than glyphosate, its principle ingredient.
>
> The worst part of all this: most of the safety tests study the active principle, not the full pesticide formulation. This isn't a new problem, either. As far back as 2006, researchers were questioning the logic behind allowing largely untested adjuvants into the food system via regulatory backdoors. This should be a no-brainer. If you're assessing the toxicity of Roundup (Monsanto's popular herbicide that goes on absolutely everything these days, from soybeans to your city parks), you have to actually test the toxicity threshold of Roundup - not just glyphosate. Right?
>
> Pesticide safety studies rarely account for synergy between multiple pesticides.
>
> Real world pesticide exposure doesn't resemble laboratory pesticide exposure. We're not exposed to one pesticide and given sufficient time to excrete it. We're exposed to dozens of them, often all at once, in uncontrolled environments. Could the EPA be underestimating the cumulative effects of multiple pesticides? There's evidence, at least in animal studies using coho salmon, honeybees, and rats that certain pesticides may be synergistic; when combined, their effects become greater than the sum of their parts. I don't see why humans would be exempt from the effects of pesticide synergy.
>
> If the effects of exposure to multiple pesticides were merely additive, that'd be one thing. We could tally up our exposures for each, compare them to the ADI, do a bit of simple arithmetic, spend several days trawling the pesticide literature for human health effects, and know where we stand. But if the effects of multiple pesticides are synergistic, if the effects are greater than the sum of the parts, we can't rely on addition or the EPA's assessments. Sure, you'd have to evaluate pesticide synergy on a case-by-case basis, and it's going to be incredibly resource-intensive, but it must be done if we want accurate ADIs for pesticides.
>
> Okay. What now?
>
> Frozen with fear? Frantically purging your kitchen of all conventional foods? Don't. That wasn't my intent. Babies (including the yet-to-be-born) and children should probably go as organic as they can, just because of the unknown and potentially large effects pesticide exposure has on developing systems. Pregnant women, too. And if you eat a lot of these 9 foods, go organic as often as possible because they contain high levels of pesticide residue. But we all need to eat food, and eating conventional produce is healthier than eating none at all. Besides, there are plenty of non-organic foods that you can safely eat.
>
> I just wanted to temper the unflappable faith many people seem to have in the experts, the institutions, the agencies. I wanted to get people talking and thinking. The EPA doesn't deal in absolute truth; they miss an awful lot, either out of ignorance or because they're looking the other way. No one does. I certainly don't. If you meet someone claiming to have all the answer(s)? Run.
>
> http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-i...#axzz3I8RBfPXu

Living with pesticides is a heck of a lot better than dying of starvation.

On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 07:43:13 -0800, "Pico Rico" >
wrote:

>
>"notbob" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2014-11-06, Sqwertz > wrote:
>>
>>> were managing to increase the average life expectancy every decade for
>>> the last 100+ years so we must be doing something right.
>>
>> Sez you.
>
>in 1900 the average life expectancy was less than 50 years.
>
>In 1998 it was 73 years or so.
>
>I think that is progress.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...port-says.html
http://www.empowher.com/community/sh...ans-decreasing

<snip>

>this is a good point, and why I think this foolishness about getting smokers
>to quit is counterproductive. If they want to enjoy their good years and
>eliminate some old, bad years, who are we to argue?

Well, a shorter life, yes. But I can't see how that eliminates some of
the 'bad years' when it comes to health and well being.