Pesticide Content in Food Less Regulated by Codex Than Vitamins and Minerals

Pesticide Content in Food Less Regulated by Codex Than Vitamins and Minerals

image source

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In the past, I have written numerous articles dealing with Codex Alimentarius and its guidelines regarding vitamin and mineral food supplements, food irradiation, and genetically modified (GM) food.
I have also written about the unfolding agenda to implement Codex
standards on a global scale to the detriment of all those who value
clean, healthy food and the ability to make their own choices regarding
what they do or do not eat.

In keeping with the theme of these previous reports, it is important to
note the official Codex position on pesticide content in food and,
specifically, the content of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).

Indeed, for those who are familiar with the aforementioned Codex
standards, it may not come as a surprise that dangerous pesticides and
persistent organic pollutants (POPs) largely escape the application of rigorous standards that vitamins and minerals receive.

While it may be common knowledge to many, there are just as many who are
unaware of the extent to which pesticide residues exist in the average
unit of food. The fact is that virtually any and all pesticides used in
food production eventually end up in the food itself, even in the
animals that consume that food as feed. Logically, these pesticides end
up in the systems of those that consume these plants and animals.

Even at this stage of scientific capabilities, the
full extent to which these pesticides are damaging to humans is not
fully known, at least at the level of the general public. However, for
many of these chemicals there is clear research linking them to adverse
health effects, while for others the status is less clear, largely due
to lack of compiled data.

At the very least, it is safe to say that these pesticides are not
healthy and are potentially hazardous to human health. Yet, due to the
large amount of pesticides in existence, the detailed testing of all
these individual substances has never been conducted. The scientific
research that does exist, however, is clear that pesticides do cause
adverse effects in humans.





For the purpose of this discussion we will distinguish between two types
of pesticides: general pesticides and persistent organic pollutants
(POPs). General pesticides are essentially any pesticides not considered
a POP by the Stockholm Convention.[1] As the Stockholm Convention, as
well as most national governments, banned the use of POPs, general
pesticides are the most widely used throughout the world. Many of these
substances have been linked to neurological problems, cancer, and
Parkinson’s disease.

Chlorpyrifos, a general pesticide, serves as a perfect example of the
harmful effects of such chemicals. For years, it was one of the most
widely used insecticides in both the United States and the world.
Millions of pounds of the chemical were used in houses, schools,
daycares, and public housing facilities exposing the occupants, children
in particular, to the toxin. The insecticide is a known neurotoxin and
cause of developmental disorders which is the main reason that the EPA,
after years of exposure, finally announced it was ready to ban the
chemical.

Before it was banned, however, Dow Chemical Co. “voluntarily” removed
the product from the home market. Yet, although chlorpyrifos was removed
from the home market, the agricultural uses continued with the tacit
approval of the EPA.

It
is interesting to note that insecticide use in agricultural products is
regulated by the EPA. So the approval of chlorpyrifos as an
agricultural pesticide by the FDA is in direct contradiction to its own
stated policy.[2] This is because the EPA “acknowledged the special
susceptibility and sensitivity of children to developmental and
neurological effects from exposure to chlorpyrifos,” on its own
website.[3]

If this is the case, then the ingestion of the chemical should also be
viewed as dangerous. If simply being in the same house as chlorypifos
can be harmful, then certainly its ingestion would be even more
dangerous. Even if one were to claim that the proximity to the chemical
were the main cause of the adverse effects associated with it, certainly
they would not argue that touching or inhaling would be more dangerous
than ingestion.

Yet this is apparently the position taken by the EPA because, elsewhere
on their own website, they claim that children are at no risk from
eating chlorypifos-treated food crops. Such statements set forth by the
EPA are backed up with absolutely no evidence and there is no real
agreement within the EPA as to how much of the chemical is too much.[4]
This is merely one example of how the EPA is compromised when it comes
to its regulatory duties and how agencies, when bedfellows with
corporations, can speak publicly out of both sides of their mouth, all
with no real consequence.

Yet chlorypifos is but one example. Many scientists have studied the
effects of pesticides on human health and come to the conclusion that
pesticide exposure results in adverse health effects.

Indeed, Parkinson’s disease is one of the most widely known risks
associated with pesticide use. One such study was published in the
Archives of Neurology and detailed a link between contact (not even
ingestion) with pesticides and an increase in Parkinson’s disease. The
study found that there was an increased risk for the disease in jobs
related to construction and extraction, legal, and religious
occupations.

Interestingly enough, the same study also found that ever having worked
in these fields as well as business and finance, transportation, or
material moving was associated with a subtype of Parkinson’s’
characterized by gait disturbances and postural instability. The study
also reported that agricultural, education, and health care workers did
not see an overall increase in risk for Parkinson’s. However, only eight
types of pesticides were studied in this regard so, logically, the
amount of exposure to these particular chemicals would vary depending on
the individual’s lifestyle and occupation.[5]

Thus, the authors state,

<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Other pesticide exposures such as hobby gardening, residential exposure,
wearing treated garments or dietary intake were not assessed. Because
these exposures may affect many more subjects, future attention is
warranted.”[6] </blockquote>
However, the overall conclusion was that “The association of disease
risk with pesticides support a toxicant-induced cause of
parkinsonism.[7]

Clearly, after having established a link between pesticides and
Parkinson’s and regardless of the intuitive or counterintuitive elements
of the specific fields of employment most affected, the researchers
have demonstrated the need for further investigation in regards to the
effects of pesticides on the brain and other general health concerns.
This link, of course, is all the more disturbing considering the obvious
disinterest by which it is approached by the EPA.

In addition, the reader should keep in mind that this study only dealt
with a small number of pesticides and one disease. Considering the
enormous amount of pesticides being used during food production, the
numerous different types of potential adverse effects, and long-term
intake effects, these findings are only one small part of the tip of the
iceberg of potential pesticide dangers.

Indeed,
the knowledge that pesticides can cause Parkinson’s disease is already
well known even without the aforementioned research. For years,
researchers have regularly created Parkinson’s in lab animals by
injecting them with pesticide chemicals. In fact, many of the diseases
created in lab animals for research are created by injecting them with
common pesticides and chemicals. This is quite interesting considering
the claim made by many medical “professionals” that the cause of
Parkinson’s is unknown.[8]

Evidently, the cause is only unknown when confronted with the damage to
the profits of the pharmaceutical and chemical industry giants that
would suffer if the cause (or at least one of them) turned out to be one
or more of their profits.

source:-
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/05/pesticide-content-in-food-less.html