Food laws - do they protect children?
Answer: no. What is permitted by law may not be good for health, and simply amazes what is permitted by law in the food and chemical industries. The use of pesticides and their labeling are controlled by the Environmental Protection Agency. The level of residues of pesticides in food is periodically checked by the Federal Service for Medicines. That is why the laws that exist to date and these organizations do not protect the apple that your child is eating.
How pesticides are "tested" and how their "safety" is established
Different amounts of pesticides are given to animals and then studied to determine the consequences of these chemicals. In addition to the obvious effects, such as life or death, paralysis or growth retardation, are examined under a microscope and tissue for abnormalities. Once a level is found that does not result in the occurrence of detectable , this level is transferred to people as "the maximum permissible level" or "safe level" - the level of pesticides left in the products allowed by law. However, what is safe for an animal and legal for a committee can be dangerous for a person. We can not rely on these studies for the following reasons:
• The experience of extrapolating to humans results from animal experiments is dotted with errors. How will you measure the intelligence of a rat?
• These studies measure short-term effects, not long-term effects. Our concern about the future of our children is the accumulation of small quantities of food pesticides left in food for a long period of time, leading to disruptions years later,
possibly even in the next generation.
• The levels authorized by the Environmental Protection Agency are designed for adults and are based on the consumption of products by an adult person in the 1960s. The Agency's recommendations do not take into account the characteristics of the nutrition of children who, in proportion, use a larger volume of poisoned foods per kilogram of body weight.
• These results are obtained artificially. How animals are tested is one thing, but how people eat is another. Usually one or more chemicals are checked on one animal. In fact, a hundred different pesticides can enter the body of a child. Chemicals have an synergistic effect, that is, if taken collectively, they can give more severe consequences than when used alone. Pesticides A and B can successfully be tested separately on different animals, but give them to one animal together and they can acquire dangerous properties. The gradual accumulation of many different pesticides over a long period of time is the main problem, and no research is being conducted in this area. We believe that no poisonous chemical should be called "safe."
• Independent studies are usually more objective than those conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency carries out party inspections. If you mix one hundred kilograms of potatoes and check the lot, you will get an average level of pesticide content. But what if only a few potatoes contain most of the pesticides, and the child will eat these potatoes?
• Inert substances remain unchecked. When studying dangerous levels, the Federal Medicines Service does not take into account health effects from inert, or neutral, ingredients. They are called "neutral" because they are not aimed at destroying pests, and not because they are safe for health. However, neutral substances can be dangerous. The Environmental Protection Agency has recently installed 110 hazardous substances for health, but there are no standards or maximum standards for food. In addition, the Federal Medicines Service does not track the content of inert ingredients in food. Producers of pesticides store secrets of trade in inert substances and usually do not advertise them on packages and labels.
Deadlock with pesticides
The Environmental Protection Agency requires that the content of pesticide food products does not exceed the minimum
is an acceptable level, considering the need for "production of benign, full-fledged and inexpensive agricultural products".The agency puts the risk of cancer, concealed in pesticides, on one scales of weights, and on another economic benefit. In simple terms, they allow food to carry the threat of cancer if it reduces prices and increases yields. The fact of attaching such a price to health was criticized by the National Academy of Sciences and the Council for the Protection of Natural Resources. Are we a nation that can not afford to give its children healthy food?
What you can do
By this point, you may have come to the conclusion that government agencies are more concerned with politics than with health. Parents, do not wait for help from the state. Farmers are more lobbying than their parents;babies and children do not have the right to vote. The logical conclusion to which we come, based on the above facts, is to abandon all carcinogenic or neurotoxic, as well as other dangerous pesticides that enter food and milk, and eventually this failure will allow us to have cleaner water. This decisive step will cost
expensive to agricultural producers and the industry of toxic chemicals with an annual turnover of six billion dollars, but it can be done. Here's how.
Just say "no!"
Do not buy poisoned products. Pressure from consumers, especially parents, has already solved many medical and social problems;it can also make our food purer. The nutritional goal of consumer pressure is very simple: parents ask for products without pesticides in the store, the store orders only products that do not contain pesticides from manufacturers, and manufacturers therefore have to stop using pesticides. We are sure that this is the only "law" that will work. Why? Because motivation is pure: protect your health and the health of your children.