Be Careful of what You Feed Your Children/Grandchildren

[roadrunner]

Seems like it's a never-ending concern of synthetic chemicals we have to be aware of. The latest is chlormequat. It's a pesticide that the US EPA has allowed for ornamental plants, but banned in food crops; however, foods contaminated with chlormequat are allowed to be imported into the US and used by various food industries.

EWG finds little-known toxic chemical in four out of five people tested

A new EWG peer-reviewed study has found chlormequat, a little-known pesticide, in four out of five, or 80 percent, people tested. The groundbreaking analysis of chlormequat in the bodies of people in the U.S. rings alarm bells, because the chemical is linked to reproductive and developmental...

www.ewg.org

Excerpt:

EWG finds little-known toxic chemical in four out of five people tested​

• First-in-the-U.S. study looked for the presence of chlormequat in humans.
• Federal rules allow the chemical’s use on oats and other grains imported to the U.S.
• Animal studies link chlormequat to reproductive and developmental problems, creating questions about its impact on humans.

A new EWG peer-reviewed study has found chlormequat, a little-known pesticide, in four out of five, or 80 percent, of people tested. The groundbreaking analysis of chlormequat in the bodies of people in the U.S. rings alarm bells, because the chemical is linked to reproductive and developmental problems in animal studies, suggesting the potential for similar harm to humans.

EWG’s research, published February 15 in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, tested for the presence of chlormequat in urine collected from 96 people between 2017 and 2023. The chemical was found in the urine of 77 of them.

Our tests found higher levels and more frequent detections of chlormequat in the 2023 samples, compared to those from 2017 through 2022, which suggests consumer exposure to chlormequat could be on the rise.

Just as troubling, we detected the chemical in 92 percent of oat-based foods purchased in May 2023, including Quaker Oats and Cheerios. The fact that so many people are exposed raises concerns about its potential impact on public health, since animal studies link chlormequat to reduced fertility, harm to the reproductive system and altered fetal growth.

 

[roadrunner]

BTW, if you read the above article you notice that the science is still out on this synthetic chemical, which has mostly been tested on rats.

However, the EPA is looking to approve this chemical for use on US food crops, because all research indicates it's safe. But there are things previously deemed safe only to be proven otherwise.

One example seems to be Glyphosate, which is suppose to pass thru mammals with no concerns, but now we're seeing tons of lawsuits against the producer of that compound.


Here is the EPA reaching out to the public for their opinion on chlormequat.

EPA Proposes to Register New Uses of Pesticide Chlormequat Chloride | US EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency released new uses of Chlormequat Chloride

www.epa.gov

 

[big rockpile]

I've raised many Small Grains and never had to spray them.

I also cultivated Corn.

I did use synthetic Fertilizer.

big rockpile

 

[cpp gardener]

It’s not actually a pesticide. It’s a growth regulator that causes the stems to be shorter and stiffer. Not really surprising that it sort of does the same to mammals.

Glyphosate, on the other hand, IS an herbicide. It hasn’t, though, been shown MEDICALLY to cause cancer or other harm. EMOTIONALLY it gets blamed for causing damage, though. Juries aren’t made up of doctors and biochemists, they’re made up of “average” people who don’t necessarily understand causation. It’s one of the most tested chemicals on the market and has passed with flying colors. The ‘report’ that started the concern was a review, without testing, of previous reports that concluded that there was a small chance that maybe, possibly, with the right conditions that could potentially, by some slim chance occur, cause cancer. Just like pretty much anything. Coffee, nicotine, French fries, and toast are more likely to cause cancer, but they get a pass.

All pesticides and household chemicals get tested on rats, since testing them on people is widely frowned upon. They’re the closest species to use.

 

[NigelJ]

All pesticides and household chemicals get tested on rats, since testing them on people is widely frowned upon. They’re the closest species to use.

Rats are not a particularly good human model as their metabolism can be quite different and they can happily eat materials that would make you unwell or dead.
Genetically modified mice have been used for some studies as have human cell cultures, but these are more expensive and have their own problems.
You might want to look at PFAS as persistent pollutants and also the fact that sewage treatment plants are relatively poor at removing medication from waste water.

 

[roadrunner]

Yeah, Growth regulator makes sense. I've been meaning to look more into what this product does, since the description of "pesticide" didn't jive with the effects on the plant.

As for the issue of Glyphosate, there probably is a possibility that these latest judgements are emotionally motivated. I simply don't know. However, it's clear that we are using way too many synthetic chemicals which is wreaking havoc on the environment and that will eventually hurt us.

Even the "safe" synthetic chemicals are the cause of dead soils that allow runoff of "safe" fertilizers, which are causing massive dead zones in our waters.

So let's just keep throwing more chemicals at the problem

 

[roadrunner]

Yeah, Growth regulator makes sense. I've been meaning to look more into what this product does, since the description of "pesticide" didn't jive with the effects on the plant.

Follow up on the use of this product. It is a pesticide, but apparently it's used more as a growth inhibitor in order to keep seed heads from bending over, which reduces harvest yield. However, I did read somewhere (I can't find it now) that it is used as a secondary ingredient in pesticide use to increase the life of the pesticide and that's why the EPA refers to it as a pesticide, despite approving it as a growth regulator in nursery plants. Weird...


I was wondering if this stuff is approved in the EU and apparently it is

Study finds chlormequat in Cheerios and Quaker products: What to know about the pesticide

A study found chlormequat in 4 out of 5 Americans tested. The EWG says the findings "ring alarm bells" as the chemical has been harmful in animals.

www.usatoday.com

Excerpt:

What is chlormequat?​

Chlormequat chloride is a pesticide used as a plant growth regulator. The agricultural chemical works by decreasing stem height. This prevents crops from bending over, which can make harvesting more difficult. It is most commonly used on wheat, oats and barley, per the EWG.


Chlormequat is not approved for use on edible plants in the U.S. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided in 2018 to allow the importation of foods treated with the chemical. It is approved for use on food crops, mostly grains, in the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada.

 

[Esther Knapicius]

We should also "teach" them to read all ingredients , to be critical thinkers, look up chemical words they don't know. Seek out the natural, learn about herbs, learn how to identify herbs etc. How to grow your own garden etc. raise a few chickens etc. How to store food etc.

 

[DirtMechanic]

It’s not actually a pesticide. It’s a growth regulator that causes the stems to be shorter and stiffer. Not really surprising that it sort of does the same to mammals.

Glyphosate, on the other hand, IS an herbicide. It hasn’t, though, been shown MEDICALLY to cause cancer or other harm. EMOTIONALLY it gets blamed for causing damage, though. Juries aren’t made up of doctors and biochemists, they’re made up of “average” people who don’t necessarily understand causation. It’s one of the most tested chemicals on the market and has passed with flying colors. The ‘report’ that started the concern was a review, without testing, of previous reports that concluded that there was a small chance that maybe, possibly, with the right conditions that could potentially, by some slim chance occur, cause cancer. Just like pretty much anything. Coffee, nicotine, French fries, and toast are more likely to cause cancer, but they get a pass.

All pesticides and household chemicals get tested on rats, since testing them on people is widely frowned upon. They’re the closest species to use.

Chocolate. Don't forget the lead and metals in chocolate.

I have become leery of grains because as what is argueably the most important crop the grains get "pushed" to maximum production efficiency. My wife eats cereal daily and I do not. Watching her as we age worries me.

 

[mkmiraglia]

Seems like it's a never-ending concern of synthetic chemicals we have to be aware of. The latest is chlormequat. It's a pesticide that the US EPA has allowed for ornamental plants, but banned in food crops; however, foods contaminated with chlormequat are allowed to be imported into the US and used by various food industries.

EWG finds little-known toxic chemical in four out of five people tested

A new EWG peer-reviewed study has found chlormequat, a little-known pesticide, in four out of five, or 80 percent, people tested. The groundbreaking analysis of chlormequat in the bodies of people in the U.S. rings alarm bells, because the chemical is linked to reproductive and developmental...

www.ewg.org

Excerpt:

EWG finds little-known toxic chemical in four out of five people tested​

• First-in-the-U.S. study looked for the presence of chlormequat in humans.
• Federal rules allow the chemical’s use on oats and other grains imported to the U.S.
• Animal studies link chlormequat to reproductive and developmental problems, creating questions about its impact on humans.

A new EWG peer-reviewed study has found chlormequat, a little-known pesticide, in four out of five, or 80 percent, of people tested. The groundbreaking analysis of chlormequat in the bodies of people in the U.S. rings alarm bells, because the chemical is linked to reproductive and developmental problems in animal studies, suggesting the potential for similar harm to humans.

EWG’s research, published February 15 in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, tested for the presence of chlormequat in urine collected from 96 people between 2017 and 2023. The chemical was found in the urine of 77 of them.

Our tests found higher levels and more frequent detections of chlormequat in the 2023 samples, compared to those from 2017 through 2022, which suggests consumer exposure to chlormequat could be on the rise.

Just as troubling, we detected the chemical in 92 percent of oat-based foods purchased in May 2023, including Quaker Oats and Cheerios. The fact that so many people are exposed raises concerns about its potential impact on public health, since animal studies link chlormequat to reduced fertility, harm to the reproductive system and altered fetal growth.

If you don't use chemicals in your garden, you don't need to worry about this. The only chemicals I ever use are mothballs to deter rabbits, woodchucks etc. and they do not go into the plants.

 

[roadrunner]

If you don't use chemicals in your garden, you don't need to worry about this. The only chemicals I ever use are mothballs to deter rabbits, woodchucks etc. and they do not go into the plants.

I grow everything using Regenerative practices, so I don't even "natural" fertilizers.

Truth be told, I'm not worried about my health WRT this chemical, there really is not enough science to prove one way or the other how hazardous this stuff will be overtime, emphasis on overtime.

However, I would worry more about young kids getting too much of this stuff in their diet.


It's the damage we're doing to the environment that is causing me all my stress every time I read about approval for a new synthetic chemical.

I'm just sick of how much we're turning to synthetic chemicals to fix every little problem. Even if this product is proven to have zero health impacts on human health, I don't have faith in the studies on environmental effects.

A good example of this are all the "safe" fertilizers that are sprayed on our crops every year. We see the dead zones they create, but we continue to call them "safe".

How are these products safe for aquatic life, which the environmental studies are suppose to determine, when they are obviously killing off aquatic life in large numbers?

And the effect on soil biomes are even worse and a major factor in why our lands don't absorb rainwater as they should, acting more like concrete when it rains. And of course, we want to reduce our use of fossil fuels, but Big Ag requires fossil fuels for much of the creation of these "safe" synthetics.

I'm not against synthetic chemicals, but we don't need to just keep pumping out new products for every problem we have. The excuse we hear is that we need to feed billions of people, but seems like the typical American is eating for five people and of course there are tons of food that go wasted, much of which is pre-consumer waste, so the real motivation is money.

We are putting profit ahead of the environment.

 

[Ruderunner]

Not that I disagree but, without those chemicals, food production would be way down. That of course would lead to starvation of many people and animals. Not a good situation either.

I do agree that there's too much reliance on synthetic but e need to acknowledge that there's not enough organic to go around. In other words, we can do better at balancing the mix.

Regarding food waste, absolutely way too much. But, much of that is due to consumers wanting only the best. Add in commodity pricing and that's understandable, why buy the bruised tomatoes for the same price as perfect tomatoes.

The solution to the above is going to places other than the local grocery stores or mega marts. We frequent the clearance shelves at grocers, go to produce markets and hit the scratch and dent stores. One can find huge discounts on less than perfect stuff . And, if you know what you're doing in many cases produce can be revived root vegetables and cabbage for example are easy. Give them water and in a few days they can have new greens and roots.

 

[roadrunner]

Another pesticide that's been found to cause major harm to people. The pathetic thing is that this has been on the market for over 60-years. And I'm absolutely sure there are many more chemicals out there that cause harm to human health, not to mention the harm caused to the eco-system, which will have other unforeseen health effects on us.

And they've known since at least 1990's this stuff was "potentially causing harm"....potentially, my ass.

In historic move, EPA bans pesticide; cites alarming setbacks for fetuses

Babies born to moms exposed to DCPA, or Dacthal, have been linked to low birth weight, impaired brain development and motor skills.

www.yahoo.com

In historic move, EPA bans pesticide; cites alarming setbacks for fetuses​

"EPA knew that DCPA was harming farmworkers and their children, and we're glad that EPA recognized that that harm to this population group required immediate suspension or removal of this toxic pesticide," said Sylvia Wu, an attorney with the Center for Food Safety, which has advocated for the EPA to stop the use of DCPA.​

 

[big rockpile]

This year have went Organic.

70 years old maybe if I had went Organic sooner I wouldn't have Cancer.

big rockpile

 

[Meadowlark]

...Coffee, nicotine, French fries, and toast are more likely to cause cancer, but they get a pass. ...

Nicotine gets a pass, it says... Ridiculous!! One would have to be utterly uninformed to believe that statement.

Coffee, french fries and toast are more likely to cause cancer than Glyphosate, it says.

Where is the research proving this? Where is the science that says drinking coffee is more carcinogenic than using Glyphosate.

What amount of coffee > carcinogenic than Glyphosate?

What amount of french fries > carcinogenic than Glyphosate? Same for toast.

Writing it on an internet forum without scientific research does NOT make it so.