Unfortunately, we don't need industrial chemicals to kill us. We're doing it ourselves, with trans-fats, junk food, too many calories overall, and not enough exercise.
Posted on 02/14/2010 8:33:53 PM PST by neverdem
The false idea that our bodies have become ‘toxic waste dumps’ is not just wrong but counterproductive.
Chemophobia is not a new phenomenon in our culture. Since the 1960s, much of the public has been afraid of exposure to chemicals. This is not surprising considering environmental disaster stories about toxic waste dumps or the history of chemicals such as vinyl chloride, aniline dyes, thalidomide, dioxin, and PCBs.
Exposure to toxic, or possibly toxic, chemicals has been drastically reduced over the past several decades through regulations and new ways of handling chemicals by industry. And yet the chemophobia epidemic has gained new momentum with recent media coverage of the “chemical body burden crisis” on websites, print articles, and TV specials (such as CNN’s “Planet in Peril”). The reality is that behind all of the media hype about chemicals in our bodies, there is little scientifically meaningful substance. In other words, it is not a crisis at all.
Some have said that finding answers is the easy part of science; it is knowing the right questions to ask that is difficult. The purveyors of the chemical body burden crisis exemplify this point. The wrong questions people ask are:
1. Can toxic man-made chemicals be found in our blood streams?
2. How many of these toxic chemicals can be found in people?
The reality is that behind all of the media hype about chemicals in our bodies, there is little scientifically meaningful substance. In other words, it is not a crisis at all.
The first question is silly, because we already know the answer: yes, of course. Pesticides, plasticizers, and the ingredients of many formerly and currently used products made with chemicals are everywhere, and we have all been exposed to them. Some of these chemicals persist, and remain in our bloodstreams for years. Until recently, these chemical traces from years of living in the modern world could not be detected in blood or urine because the technology to do so was not powerful enough. Now it is. Analytical techniques to find chemicals in blood or urine have advanced to being able to detect such low concentrations of most chemicals (in some cases as low as 1 nanogram per liter, which is the equivalent of 5 grains of salt in Lake Tahoe) that it is actually surprising when some trace of a chemical in common use is not found.
The second question is not relevant to anything related to health, although it makes for lurid headlines, such as: “Alarming Body Burden Results: Tests Reveal 300 Chemical Compounds in Newborn Babies” or “89 of 116 chemicals detected in Americans’ blood and urine.”
One voice of reason, that of Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, reminds us that the “dose makes the poison.” It is the first lesson that all toxicologists learn, she says, and one the public should also. “My concern about this trend about measuring chemicals in the blood,” Whelan says, “is it’s leading people to believe that the mere ability to detect chemicals is the same as proving a hazard, that if you have this chemical, you are at risk of a disease, and that is false.”
In fact, none of the discussions on chemical body burden that I have seen ask the right questions, which relate to the actual dose to which people have been exposed. The right questions are:
1. How much of the chemical is found in our bodies?
2. Is the amount found sufficient to have any possible negative impact on our health?
3. What are the trends of chemical body burden with time? Are they increasing, decreasing or staying the same?
Finding 37 or 98 or some number of chemicals in the blood of a famous journalist such as Anderson Cooper means nothing. We all also contain measurable amounts of arsenic, cyanide, carbon monoxide, and many other “natural” poisons, but we don’t die from them, since they are present in low amounts.
If there had once been a problem with chemical exposures, it has been getting steadily better over time.
So now that we know the right questions to ask, what are the answers? The answers are available, but not easily. It is quite difficult for someone surfing the Internet to find any data on the actual amounts of chemicals that have been found in people. And it is even more difficult to correlate these levels with those that could produce any toxic effects. For some chemicals, the information is simply not known. It generally takes a considerable amount of research to determine what levels of each specific chemical are dangerous, and what levels can be assumed to not warrant concern. The question of trends is also sometimes difficult to answer, since most chemical exposures have not been carefully followed with time.
But the good news is that for many chemicals, accurate and precise measurements have been made on a large number of people by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which has published three reports with the data. For many of these same chemicals, we do have information on how much of a body burden is safe, and what level represents risk. These data, called Biological Exposure Indices, have been gathered from many research studies into the toxicology of chemicals in human beings.
The actual data paint a very different picture of human chemical body burden than one gets from the hysteria surrounding the issue in the media. In all cases, the levels of body burden seen in human blood and urine are below (and usually far below) the lowest level that is expected to cause any toxicity or clinical symptoms. Furthermore, for all of the chemicals that have been investigated there have been major and dramatic decreases in the body burden over time. For some compounds, these decreases can be seen over a single- or two-year interval.
For example, consider some toxic metals. Cobalt becomes a chemical of toxic concern at levels over 15 microgram per liter (ug/L) in urine. One CDC report showed an average level of 0.4 ug/L. The highest 5 percent of individuals had concentrations of 1.3 ug/L, about 10 times less than the level that would begin to show any effect. The insecticide para nitrophenol has been found at levels as high as 5 ug/L in urine, and the lowest toxic effect level is 500 ug/L—100 times higher. Body burden levels of pentachlorophenol are 1,000 times lower than toxic levels. And so on.
Finding 37 or 98 or some number of chemicals in the blood of a famous journalist such as Anderson Cooper means nothing.
And what about trends? Is there evidence that we keep getting exposed to more and more chemicals in our environment? No. The evidence leads to the opposite conclusion: our chemical body burdens have been decreasing consistently over time. Dieldrin is present in our blood at levels 10 times lower than in the period 1976–1980. PCBs are present from 3 to 5 times less than in 1988. The famous insecticides DDT and DDE are found at 15 times and three times lower concentrations than they were in 1976–1980. The chemical dichlorochenol is 10 times less prevalent in our bodies than it was in the period 1988–1994.
For some chemicals, like hydroxyphenanthrene, hydroxyfluorene, hydroxyl pyrene, several phthalates (plasticizers), hexachlorocyclohexene, trichlorophenol, dimethylphosphate, mercury, and lead, significant decreases can be seen within a two-year period, comparing 1999–2000, to 2001–2002.
The reasons for the decreases are obvious. We have been subject to much less chemical exposures than we were decades ago. The best example of this is lead. Since the ban on lead in gasoline and other products, human blood lead has steadily declined to levels 50 to 100 times less than in the 1980s.
When one looks at the real data in order to answer the questions that make sense, the conclusion is the opposite of the one generated by most of the media blitz about the chemical body burden “crisis.” In fact, there never was a crisis. And if there had once been a problem with chemical exposures, it has been getting steadily better over time.
I am not proposing that we totally ignore the issue of chemical contamination of our blood and tissues. For a few agents, like cadmium, the highest levels seen are not that far from those where toxic effects are possible. Therefore we need to carefully monitor cadmium in the environment, and take steps to reduce further cadmium exposure. But the false idea that our bodies have become “toxic waste dumps,” as has become one of the latest mantras of the environmental doomers, is not only silly, but counterproductive. We cannot ban chemicals from our world, so the false crisis has no real solution. The crescendo of fear and outrage that it invokes in people serves no purpose. The best antidote for this irrational plague of fear is the same as it usually is: good science, clearly understood, and openly available to all.
Seymour Garte, Ph.D. is a professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health. He is the author of Where We Stand: A Surprising Look at the Real State of the Planet, Amacom Press, 2007.
A good read thank you for the post.
I have just finished reading John Ringo’s “The Last Centurion”. OK, it’s fiction, but it does a very good job of breaking down the arguments vis-a-vis organic and industrial farming.
I am wondering if any farming FReepers have read it, and if they would like to comment on the arguments for or against modern industrial farming techniques.
As a side note, how many times have you heard or read that industrial farmers often keep special gardens where they grow food for their own families without using pesticides and herbicides? I can’t remember how many times I have read this. But, and this is a major “but”, nobody I have heard this from is a farmer. It’s always past around as something they have read about or heard from someone else.
So, Freeping Farmers, is this true?
Unfortunately, we don't need industrial chemicals to kill us. We're doing it ourselves, with trans-fats, junk food, too many calories overall, and not enough exercise.
What chemical industry does this guy lobby for. The vast increase in auto-immune, endocrine, and allergic diseses are most certainly at least partly, if not entirely, due to increasing chemicals in our environment.
My husband and I are farmers. We have grown spinach, lettuce, onions, watermelons, pumpkins, food grains, feed grains, cotton and our main crop at this time is chile. We have a freezer full of red and green chile, it was picked out of the same field as that which went to market.
Farmers do have gardens because we like variety too but we never grow in our gardens what we have in our fields, that would be a waste of effort.
Most farmers don’t just put chemicals indiscriminately, they are prohibitively expensive and if you think you can do without them you do. There is one insecticide that we are going to have to use this year because of the wet winter, it costs $3600 a gallon and you use 2 to 4 ounces to the acre.
Think about that one, that is 2 to 4 ounces for 20 to 30 thousand plants, the amount of material that is sprayed on each plant is minuscule.
For most vegetable crops there are few good herbicides so we have the weeds hoed out. Most fungicides are copper or zinc powders, there are others, I’d have to look up their chemical make up. Most of our modern chemicals have been tested to death and they have to be certified for each crop, even if it works you can’t use a herbicide that you use on cotton on something else unless it has been cleared for that crop.
I can tell you that without modern agriculture the world would be a hungrier place. Organic sounds great but chemicals prevent fungi and other pathogens that can kill whole crops, so we produce more food and fiber. Some of those pathogens are instant killers, and some are slow killers and some are carcinogens. They even have posited that the hysteria that resulted in the Salem Witch trials was caused by ergot in the wheat that year.
I was reading the other day that they think that the Chinese have high instances of liver cancer because of aflatoxins, a fungus that grows on grain. You can use insecticide to kill the bugs that cause the initial damage which allows the aflatoxin to flourish and you can treat it with a fungicide in storage.
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090859
If you have anymore questions I’ll be happy to try to answer them.
Physicists play Lego with photons
Bacteria-killing proteins cover blood type blind spot
Red wine and dark chocolate cancer killers: researcher
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
And you know that how?
All the things you list as being increased are all things that they didn’t know existed 50 years ago or they didn’t have the diagnostic tests for them. That would account for the increase.
Gosh, just imagine the increase of diagnosed fibromyalgia from 20 years ago until now, from none to millions.
Thanks for the reply.
What you wrote parallels a lot of what I read in Ringo’s book and I find myself shaking my head in exasperation at my “organic-equals-good” brainwashing now that he has clearly explained how labor intensive, inefficient and potentially unhealthy organic farming is compared to modern methods.
I almost freaked. Unhealthy? Your points are very good and you don’t even mention the potential for e-coli outbreaks that are almost inevitable when organic fertilizers are used.
Your post and his book also makes it clear to me that the idea that there are industrial farmers who keep a special “organic” garden for their own use is silly.
Of course, they have their own gardens. That’s simply common sense. Fresh produce is always nice and nobody is going to use any more chemicals than necessary for their healthy growth, for reasons of cost if nothing else.
$3600 a gallon? Holy smokes! I had no idea those chemicals were that expensive.
Well...having lived ON a commercial orchard (100 acres) I can tell you it’s awfully hard for a farmer to have their own separate garden that does NOT get any chemicals.....I tried....by putting it out on the edge of the orchard, but it was near impossible....what are you going to do, cover it during spray time?
Having said that....I also took a class prior to moving to the orchard so that I could get a license to apply pesticides - although I just wanted to know the how of it....I still say that without pesticides/herbicides we (the USA) would not have been able to FEED as many people as we have in past 100 years.
Oh, and I did fight with my FIL over the amount of spraying HE did.....each farmer makes individual choices...he seemed to go on the heavier side....
That much is obvious. In fact, it's also pretty much obvious that a return to "organic" farming would mean famine in most parts of the world.
Not that the greens would care much about that -- as long as they, personally, didn't starve.
The people talking about special gardens are probably thinking about grow lights in the basement and a very special crop.
Hard to say how much truth there is to anything these days.
For instance, the other day I heard a commercial that started out stating something like “Seventy percent of children are deficient in calcium...” or something very close to that.
That may also be true.
But the way the commercial was designed and presented, it was basically to make the hairs on the back of the neck of any mothers that heard it that their children were in mortal danger and could drop dead any second!
Whatever factual basis in the commercial, it was completely neutered and made irrelevant by the hysteria quotient.
And I have noticed this theme over and over. Commercials are not made to help you benevolently find a better life. Commercials are made to scare you, to embarrass you, to humiliate and shame you so much you will run out and buy whatever snake oil is being hawked!
And we wonder why people go postal... just LOOK, FOLKS!!!
If you have anymore questions I’ll be happy to try to answer them.
Excellent! (he says, rubbing his hands together) I just happen to have a question.
How do I get in good with you so I can get in on your next chile harvest? :-) lol
ping to a very sensible article about chemicals in our environment.
lol I was going to ping you!
ping pong
It seems to me that spraying with herbicides and pesticides:
1. Vastly increases the amount of food (reducing death by hunger)
2. Vastly reduces various deadly fungi and pathogens (reducing death by infection)
3. Vastly increases the wealth of a nation (increasing everyone’s quality of life).
I am all for testing herbicides and pesticides to stay aware of risk/benefits, but to baldly state that organic is inherently superior to all fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides seems to me to be easily proven false.
I know that’s not your position; I’m responding to your point about all the people we feed.
I am wondering if any farming FReepers have read it, and if they would like to comment on the arguments for or against modern industrial farming techniques.
The main argument for "industrial" farming is 100's of millions of people around the globe would stare. There isn't enough arable land available to go back to low yield farming if we want to keep feeding everyone on the planet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.