Here All The Certified Organic Foods With Carcinogens You Need To Avoid This Thanksgiving

By Hank Campbell | November 27th 2019 @ Science 2.0

Let's say your Generation Z child is concerned about chemicals in your Thanksgiving meal and you want to avoid that awkward moment when they don't look up from their phones while saying "OK Boomer" as you try to explain to them that all food has chemicals.

Maybe they just don't want scientific chemicals. Maybe they want the organic kind that are healthier, according to, well, organic industry trade groups and journalists at the Mother Jones company.

So you trudge off to Whole Foods or a store you read about on a Facebook page and buy the stuff on your menu, all certified expensive. I hate to alarm you but it all has chemicals that are known carcinogens. That's right, they cause cancer.

I don't want to make you ill, so I will note for you what scaremongers in activist groups and the trial lawyers supporting them for profit (Center for Science in the Public Interest, et al.) don't reveal. While these carcinogens are in your organic or regular-priced meal, except for alcohol, they only cause cancer in rats. And rats are not little people. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is looking for coverage from Sheila Kaplan at the New York Times or someone else who only gets their science from lawyers at CSPI.(1)

Here is a sample menu and the toxic chemicals they contain. Again, you can relax. When it comes to France's IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) group or the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, rats are people and they only care about the presence of a chemical but chemists, toxicologists, and biologists know better. Those epidemiologists are not trying to do science, they are out to create a statistical correlation using a hazard. They don't consider risk, so they will use 5 orders of magnitude for dose. That's right, they consider one beer as the same as 10,000 beers all consumed at the same time. That's why you can't use their claims as anything more than exploratory, a lesson more journalists and California's Prop 65 panel should learn.

Here are the cancer-causing chemicals in even your organic Thanksgiving meal.

STARTERS

Organic Baby Greens - Nitrates and 3-O-(2’’-O-methylmalonnyl-β-D glucopyranoside)-4’-O-β-D-glucopyranoside

Roasted Golden and Red Beets - Caffeic acid

Crumbled Goat Cheese -Estrogen (endocrine disrupting chemical)

Grape Tomatoes - Solanine neurotoxin

Candied Walnuts - Aflatoxins

Dijon Dressing - Allyl isothiocyanate

Celery - Caffeic acid

Broccoli - Allyl isothiocyanate

Rolls with butter - Acetaldehyde, benzene, ethyl carbonate.

ENTREES

Potatoes - Dolanine, arsenic, chaconine, caffeic acid and ethyl alcohol, that last one is also a human carcinogen.

Turkey - Heterocyclic amines, rodent carcinogens and mutagens.  Even that $400 "Heritage" turkey from Williams-Sonoma.

Stuffing - Some of the ones mentioned above plus acrylamide, dihydrazines and more.
Tomato Risotto - Lycopene
Grilled Asparagus - Saponins
Grilled Pepper Crusted Filet of Beef - N-nitroso compounds
Bordelaise Sauce - Ethanol
Cranberry sauce - furan derivatives, which are mutagens (see the Great Cranberry Scare of 1959 for more)

DESSERT

Chocolate Cake - Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Vanilla Crème Anglaise - Benzene
Fresh Raspberries - Quercetin
Coffee - Freshly Brewed Acrylamide plus hydrogen peroxide, a mutagen and rodent carcinogen
Decaffeinated Coffee - Furan
Herbal and Caffeinated Teas - Variety of Benzo[A]pyran
Pumpkin pie - Benzo(a)pyrene, coumarin, methyl eugenol and safrole

NOTE:

(1) I am not kidding. In 2016 I was running ACSH and when Dr. Alex Berezow criticized her for using CSPI on a science issue instead of a scientist, in retaliation she tried to claim I was a ... felon. Now, I did have a speeding ticket one time, but that is not a felony, even in California. Still, attacking the science media community was enough to land her a job at the New York Times. Next up, a "visiting fellow" appointment to the New York University Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. It is where all journalists who undermine science get the call.

Science 2.0

California's java joke is a wakeup call on cancer warnings

International Agency for Research on Cancer is known to cherry-pick data to reach politically motivated findings

by Dr. Henry I. Miller and Jeff Stier @ The Mercury News June 8, 2018

It's often said that California is a bellwether, a place where nationwide trends begin. For the sake of farmers, particularly those in poor countries where coffee is an economically important crop, let's hope not.

Last month a California judge ruled that because of the state's decades-old notorious Proposition 65, which has given rise to warnings about non-dangerous chemicals everywhere from supermarkets to libraries, coffee sellers must now post warnings about the possible cancer risk posed by a compound in coffee.

The Council for Education and Research on Toxics brought the lawsuit against Starbucks and 46 others coffee retailers, claiming the presence of high levels of acrylamide, a chemical created when coffee beans are roasted, is carcinogenic and requires a "clear and reasonable" warning. (Acrylamide is converted in the body to a compound called glycidamide, which damages DNA.)

But acrylamide is also commonly found in other foods, such as French fries, bread, and olives. Its presence in fries previously resulted in litigation from the same activists.

How could warnings of hidden "carcinogens" be without merit? Well, many compounds, both natural and synthetic, in food test positive for carcinogenicity. UC Berkeley biochemist Bruce Ames and his colleagues observed that the cooking of food is a major dietary source of potential rodent carcinogens: "Cooking produces about 2 g (per person per day) of mostly untested burnt material that contains many rodent carcinogens." Should there be a Prop 65 warning in every kitchen in California?

Coffee will join more than 800 chemicals on California's Proposition 65 list, which is intended to alert the public about "substances identified as human or animal carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer" (IARC). But therein lies another problem: That agency, which is part of the World Health Organization, has long been criticized for using a flawed approach - basing its decisions on hazard (the possibility of harm at any dose) instead of risk (the probability of harm, taking exposure into consideration).

IARC is known to cherry-pick data to reach politically motivated findings. The agency has reviewed nearly 1,000 substances and activities, and only one has been deemed non-carcinogenic. IARC looks for any shred of evidence to prove that something might cause cancer, even under extreme circumstances. It is confirmation bias at its worst: Reach a conclusion first, find the evidence later.

Moreover, inexplicably, IARC itself issued a press release on June 15, 2016, about the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity of coffee:

After thoroughly reviewing more than 1000 studies in humans and animals, the Working Group found that there was inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of coffee drinking overall. Many epidemiological studies showed that coffee drinking had no carcinogenic effects for cancers of the pancreas, female breast, and prostate, and reduced risks were seen for cancers of the liver and uterine endometrium. For more than 20 other cancers, the evidence was inconclusive.

This is the folly at the heart of proposition 65: If there's a scientifically insignificant amount of a chemical that causes cancer in high-dose animal experiments, a warning is required, even if consumption of the product doesn't actually cause cancer. Indeed, in the case of coffee, where evidence suggests a protective effect against certain cancers, a warning is necessary nonetheless. How can that be? In the California court's contorted opinion, "Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health."

If California is truly a bellwether, be forewarned: Common sense and justice are under attack.

Dr. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Jeff Stier is a senior fellow at the Consumer Choice Center.

This flawed UN health agency threatens America's food supply.

It's time for badly needed reform

by Jeff Stier and Julie KellyMarch 2, 2018 Foxnews.Com

Question: When is a carcinogen not necessarily a carcinogen?

Answer: When the labelling is done by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a French-based institution that is having a big and unjustified impact on American law and our economy.

That's the majority view from an investigation by the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which is trying to understand how IARC classified the most commonly used herbicide in the world as a probable carcinogen, while nearly every government agency which evaluated the chemical, including our own EPA, reached the opposite conclusion.

Big money, and the future of American agriculture, is involved. The chemical is glyphosate, an ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, which is used worldwide to boost agricultural productivity, increasingly  in conjunction with genetically modified crops. The product is a huge target for class-action lawyers and green activists who make a living sowing hatred of Monsanto and its products. (Neither of us has ever received funding from Monsanto.)........."An IARC working group collaborates behind closed-doors to select data, analyze data, and reach conclusions. So, without any public engagement or independent scientific peer review, the working group acts as hand-in-hand with IARC staff as judges, juries, and executioners.".........To Read More....

 

California’s Cancerous Coffee Nonsense

Michelle Minton January 26, 2018

 

If you have ever visited California, you have probably encountered the warning labels that appear on everything from seaweed to soft drinks, informing you that they contain “dangerous” ingredients that might cause cancer or birth defects. State law requires food manufacturers put the label on products that contain any one of 900 chemicals supposedly linked to such risks. Now a state judge may add coffee to the ever-growing list of “risky” products. Such a decision might finally wake residents to the fact that the overly cautious warnings are nothing more than a boondoggle.

California voters approved Proposition 65 back in 1986, requiring warning labels for products containing chemicals “known to the state to cause cancer or birth defects.” One of the chemicals is acrylamide, a naturally occurring chemical compound. While present in many raw foods, acrylamide is also produced when foods that contain both starch and amino acids (e.g. potatoes, grains, meat, and beans) are heated to high temperatures. As a result, products like French fries, roasted potatoes, toast, and now coffee contain levels of the chemical above California’s allowed limit.

The problem is that the evidence linking many of the 900 chemicals to risk is slim to none. ......To Read More...

Neurotoxins in Your Thanksgiving Meal

Angela Logomasini, Ph.D., Contributor11/21/2017 04:29 pm ET

Note: This originally appeared in The Huffington Post and SAFEChemicalPolicy.org

Should you “go organic” for Thanksgiving, buying only “chemical free” foods? That’s the suggestion of some “health advocates” who say it’s in your best interest to avoid “dangerous” synthetic chemicals, particularly pesticides. Yet not only is it impossible to avoid chemicals, it’s simply not necessary for public health purposes.

All physical things are made of chemicals, so yes, there are chemicals in your turkey, potatoes, and apple pie. Moreover, all food is already technically “organic,” since plants and animals are by definition “organic” or carbon-based. The real question is: Are some chemicals in your food dangerous?
 

Chemicals in your food certainly can be dangerous, whether they are manmade or naturally occurring. Fortunately, federal regulators and food companies track and regulate levels of both natural and synthetic chemicals that appear in food to ensure levels remain negligible.
 

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has done a fantastic job putting the issue in perspective with their Holiday Dinner Menu. It features many naturally forming “rodent carcinogens” (chemicals that cause tumors in rodents exposed to high amounts) found in a traditional American turkey-day meal. Many of these chemicals are natural pesticides that the plants produce to fight off insects, and they are both more potent and more common than man-made pesticides.

ACSH’s menu points out: “The human dietary intake of nature’s pesticides is about 10,000 times higher than human intake of synthetic pesticides that are rodent carcinogens.” Yet the levels of these are unlikely to pose much risk. Manmade pesticides—because they appear at far lower levels—are even less likely to pose risks.
 

While ACSH’s menu focuses on rodent carcinogens, there are also other chemicals or toxins commonly found in food. For example, your pumpkin pie and butternut squash might have traces of toxins known as cucurbitacins, which may also have health benefits, but at high levels in food can make you sick. Your lima beans naturally contain harmless levels of cyanide, and there may be inconsequential traces of arsenic in your carrots as well—all thanks to Mother Nature.
 

A1990 seminal article by scientist Bruce Ames and his colleagues details the potency and impact of such naturally occurring chemicals in food versus synthetic chemicals found in food. There’s no competition: Mother Nature’s chemicals are far stronger and more widespread by a long shot, but risks still remain manageable.
 

Disregarding this reality, media hype about conventional produce and synthetic pesticides suggests they pose serious health risks. Much of this hype appears politically driven. For example, after a Trump administration decision rejecting an environmental activist petition to ban the pesticide known as chlorpyrifos, media attacks exploded. They absurdly allege that the pesticide is a dangerous “neurotoxin” similar to chemical warfare agents such as sarin gas and that it’s use could actually lead to brain damage.
 

It is true that chlorpyrifos is a neurotoxin. It inhibits the effectiveness of an enzyme called cholinesterase, which is necessary for proper functioning of the nervous system. In very low, dilute doses, the impact of chlorpyrifos on insects’ nervous systems is enough to kill them. In humans, exposure must reach relatively high and concentrated levels for a period of time before significant health effects can occur. Federal pesticide regulation keeps human exposures low enough to avoid health effects in people.
 

Human exposure to chlorpyrifos is, in fact, quite insignificant. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture surveys, only very tiny traces of chlorpyrifos show up on produce. For example, their 2015 survey found that out of 10,158 fruits and vegetable samples, only 84—less than one percent—had traces of chlorpyrifos, which means more than 99 percent of the produce tested had no measurable levels of chlorpyrifos. For the few samples that had residues, the highest measurement on any sample was 0.38 parts per million (ppm), but most residues were far lower. FDA lists the highest concentrations found for each fruit and vegetable, the average of which is just 0.06 ppm.
 

To grasp how incredibly insignificant chlorpyrifos exposure is, compare it to levels of natural neurotoxins found in just one of the most popular Thanksgiving dishes: mashed potatoes. Potatoes naturally contain neurotoxins known as glycoalkaloids. The most prevalent glycoalkaloids are solanine and chaconine, and they are basically naturally occurring pesticides that protect the potatoes from pests. Glycoalkaloids are also found in other foods—including apples, cherries, and blueberries used to make holiday pies, as well as tomatoes and peppers in your salad—but at very low levels.

Just like chlorpyrifos, these chemicals inhibit cholinesterase, but levels are usually too low to have any health impacts. Potatoes containing under 200-250 ppm of glycoalkaloids are generally considered safe. Potatoes on the market in the United States naturally contain an estimated 20-150 ppm (average of 80 ppm) of glycoalkaloids. If you store potatoes in the light, both glycoalkaloids along with chlorophyll increase and the potatoes take on a greenish hue and begin to sprout. You should trash such potatoes because the glycoalkaloids can eventually exceed safe levels.

So now, let’s go back to compare the average level of glycoalkaloids found in healthy potatoes to levels of chlorpyrifos residue on vegetables and fruits. For potatoes it’s 80 ppm, while the average high for the small percentage of fruits and veggies that had chlorpyrifos residues was just 0.06 ppm. Remember also that more than 99 percent of 2015 USDA-sampled produce contained no chlorpyrifos residues.
 

Yet groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council have suggested such inconsequential traces of chlorpyrifos in your holiday meal could be dangerous. Would you take them seriously if they said the same about your mashed potatoes? Probably not, but it’s clear that your Thanksgiving potatoes likely have neurotoxins that are multitudes higher than trace levels of chlorpyrifos found on all of the fruits and veggies on your plate combined.
 

That said, it remains true that food contamination is a real safety concern, but most food risks come from, ironically, the “organic” part of the universe: from living creatures such as E. coli or Salmonella. Such pathogens contaminate food as a result of improper preparation (such as under cooking certain meats), cross contamination of pathogens found in raw meat to other foods, improper storage, or simply keeping food to long. Fortunately, we do have some control over those most dangerous risks.
 

Now you know there’s no need to fret about trace chemicals in your holiday meals! So relax and enjoy a fear-free and healthy Thanksgiving dinner.

Trial to decide whether coffee must be labeled as a carcinogen in California

Lisa Fickenscher | September 11, 2017 | New York Post

Starbucks and a host of other coffee sellers are fighting a lawsuit that alleges roasted coffee beans contain low levels of a carcinogen — and therefore coffee products sold in California, from lattes to packaged beans, should carry Surgeon General-like warnings.   A little-known public interest group, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics, or CERT, sued roughly 70 companies, claiming the state’s Proposition 65, which requires warning labels on anything that contains materials that cause cancer, should apply to coffee.

Roasted coffee beans contain low levels of acrylamide, a carcinogen, CERT claims in court papers.
The coffee industry argues that the trace amounts of acrylamide found in coffee are too insignificant to cause a health risk — and foods such as toast, cereals, roasted asparagus and baby food all contain the chemical.

In July, the results of a study published by the American College of Physicians showed that coffee drinkers had a lower risk of death from a number of deadly diseases. ........  To Read More....

My Take - Actually, coffee can have between 11 and 17 carcinogens and most of them test more carcinogenic than synthetic chemicals.  But there are a host of foods that test carcinogenic, including mushrooms, all the cabbage products. 

Let's take a look at a "Holiday Dinner Menu".

Having said that. No matter what the 1958 Delaney Clause of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic act of 1938 says, it's still the dose that makes the poison. 

WHO’s IARC cancer hazard agency: Can it be reformed or should it be abolished?

By  Alan Boobis, Angelo Moretto and Samuel Cohen | April 18, 2017 | Genetic Literacy Project

Editor’s note: Over four decades, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has assessed 989 substances and activities, ranging from arsenic to red meat to working as a painter to sunlight, and found all but one of them were likely to cause cancer in humans. Ranked among the “Group 1 Carcinogens” are wood dust and Chinese salted fish.

The findings are used by many global agencies to inform regulators. But they have caused consternation, particularly among scientists who believe the evaluation standards, established decades ago, are out of touch with modern toxicological knowledge. At stake are judgments that can affect the lives of millions of people and the economic activities of states and multinational companies. IARC’s rulings influence many things, from whether chemicals are licensed for use in industry to whether consumers accept certain products or lifestyles.

Concerns about glyphosate’s health impacts increased in 2015 after IARC classified the herbicide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic,” using its hazard evaluation standards. The IARC classification was widely circulated by anti-chemical and anti-GMO advocacy groups, which argued for bans or tighter restrictions.

More recent controversies over classification of red meat and processed meat as cancer-causing have spurred scientists and regulators to re-examine IARC’s methodologies and mandate. Ten leading scientists authored a paper for Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology calling for reform of IARC’s mandate and techniques, which most dramatically impact European regulations but also oversight in North America. Three of those scientists who co-authored the journal article discuss the reforms necessary to bring IARC’s practices into the 21st century. The authors:

• Alan R Boobis: Centre for Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Toxicology Unit, Department of Medicine, Hammersmith Campus, Imperial College London, London, W12 0NN, UK
• Angelo Moretto: Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche e Cliniche (Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences) Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
• Samuel M Cohen: Department of Pathology and Microbiology, Havlik-Wall Professor of Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-3135, USA.*Correspondence to: scohen@unmc.edu

See Article Here

It's Time To Stop Using Simplistic Hazard Classifications For Carcinogen Claims

By Hank Campbell @ The American Coucil on Science and Health

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was founded with a noble goal - to put an end to environmental claims based on weak observational anecdotes, like Rachel Carson claiming that she knew people who sprayed DDT in their basement and died (1) or that cranberries were going to poison everyone.

Yet in recent years they have become complicit in just that. Their mission is to identify the causes of cancer, known as hazard identification, and not make suggestions about the degree to which each carcinogen presents a risk to public health, yet they have begun to do that all of the time. When they bizarrely claimed that eating sausage was as hazardous as smoking (a Group 1 carcinogen), they damaged their credibility with the public likely beyond repair. And I noted it was because they routinely use the term "risk" - 38 times just in their Q&A on meat. Cell phones, glyphosate, you name it and this has become routine for them. How did it come to be? In last year's "IARC: Diesel Exhaust & Lung Cancer", based on their 2012 assessment of diesel exhaust, I analyzed how IARC intentionally chose working group members that were certain to make biased conclusions. A big part of the reason, I noted, was that Dr. Chris Portier, whose title was officially Chairman of the IARC Working Group, had a secret title - consultant for Environmental Defense Fund.

He created a landscape where anyone who had ever consulted for industry was biased and therefore could not participate, but his work for an activist group was exempt from even being disclosed. (2) How endemic is the problem? No one can be sure, because the one government agency not in favor of transparency about its work is IARC. They have told participating scientists not to comply with any requests about IARC inner workings unless forced to by court order. IARC says they own all of the material and that scientists should destroy any notes related to the creation of the monographs.
The problem is not just an activist at IARC who is promoting an ideological agenda, it is the classification system itself. As Boobis, et al. note in a recent Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology paper, the system is tailor-made for lawsuits and shoddy policy but can't really inform the public or policymarkers about potential harm. One of the ways to automatically get on California's Proposition 65 warning list is to be found carcinogenic by IARC. (3) But prior to their lowered classification on coffee, which anyone who knows the U.N. knows was done after the backlash on hot dogs caused people to lose faith in them, there was only one compound that they believed was safe. (4)

That was not the original mission of IARC. The original mission of the group was solely to determine hazardous substances and then the assumption was further risk studies would be done. Everyone knows the famous phrase of Paracelsus; the dose makes the poison. Yet risk studies are often not done, hazard claims stand alone. As I noted about Prop 65 and California, the story ends with an IARC claim about hazard, risk studies are forgotten and lawsuits begin, even if risk is negligible. Aspartame is included on that coffee mug we give away to donors in Note 4 below because it can be toxic - if you drink 7,000 diet sodas a day. IARC leaves that part out of their determinations, even though they throw around the word "risk" all of the time with media briefings. They never calculate risk. Instead, chemicals with 7 orders of magnitude difference in the dose required to cause cancer can be placed in the same category. That means to IARC, 1 is the same as 10,000,000.

If you are unfamiliar, here is the classification scheme that is now used for so much malevolence by environmental groups:

Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans
Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans
Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans
Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans.

Any expert in human biology knows meat in moderation is fine, but as the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology authors note, if you use IARC classification of meat (Group 1) as your guide, then logically mustard gas (also Group 1) in moderation must also be fine. But they are only the same because to IARC 1 is equal to 10,000,000. Of course they are not the same in risk, mustard gas will kill you and bologna won't.(5)

We're living longer than previous generations, and that is thanks to science and medicine but it's also due to mitigating the potential risks of chemicals and behaviors that really are dangerous, like smoking (Group 1, with sausage.) Yet simplistic IARC claims have recently led to wealth for environmental lawyers and not much benefit for the public - their findings lead to spurious science claims based on animal, in vitro and in silico tests claiming cancer. When those are not producing the desired result, epidemiological meta-analyses substitute and suggest correlation and causation. A simple scheme that was originally designed to home in on cancer causes so that real study could begin is now automatically getting chemicals banned. It has become the default for risk policy in government even though IARC does not determine risk.

We need to know what is really dangerous - to separate environmental health scares from true health threats. IARC is instead now nothing more than a public relations tool for activist fundraising.


NOTES:

(1) Regardless of the shoddy science -  in the Science review, Professor IL Baldwin compared her book to a "prosecuting attorney's impassioned plea for action against" chemicals despite their benefits - her impact is the dream scenario of anti-science activists even today. That Baldwin was a professor of agricultural bacteriology at University of Wisconsin and chairman of the Committee on Pest Control and Wildlife Relationships of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, and therefore an actual expert, has been dismissed by her descendants.

To her credit, she wanted GMOs, which would get her thrown out of the modern environmental movement.

(2) And got his brother Kenneth placed on the hastily-called EPA glyphosate Scientific Advisory Panel, created after IARC declared it a carcinogen. Nonetheless, EPA was forced to exonerate the pesticide, though they have wisely postponed their final report again - this time until after the U.S. election. The administration likely does not want to enrage environmentalists and cause them to stay away from the polls. EDF now claims he does not work for them on pesticides, he only works for them on air pollution and global warming modeling, despite the fact that he was Director of the National Center for Environmental Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - nothing to do with global warming.
(3) 30 years ago that at least had some legitimacy.
(4) What is incredibly hazardous and known to be toxic? Caffeine in coffee. IARC is bonkers.

We give these mugs free to donors but no one goes into a panic. If they were easily
confusedby hazard and risk, they wouldn't be donors here. Credit: Hank Campbell

(5) Marketing groups can also note it is safer to eat glyphosate than it is to eat a hot dog, thanks to IARC. You're welcome, Monsanto.

Demagoguery Beats Data

By Rich Kozlovich

“What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way; "Demagoguery beats data." Thomas Sowell

The pest control industry seems to be faced with the same problem. We're constantly told how we have to restrict pesticide use. We are told we must find alternatives to what we're using. We're told we must adopt “least toxic” (whatever that means) pest control programs.

Why?

Because they claim that pesticides may affect our health and the environment adversely.  This isn’t only from the environmental activists outside of government.  It's also the constant refrain from those environmental activists within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

It costs about three hundred million dollars to bring a pesticide to market - are we to assume that we don’t know what all the potential effects these products may have on people and the environment? Actually - yes! We aren’t allowed to test people, so we don’t really know what any product will do, whether it's pesticides or automobiles, until it is in common use. With pesticides ultimately the final testing ground will be agriculture.

In years gone by the structural pest control industry used far more liquid pesticides than we do now, and we were only using 4% of all the pesticides manufactured, liquids only being a part of that percentage. Four percent doesn’t make much money when the cost of testing is so high. Therefore any pesticide manufactured must be manufactured for use on corn, tobacco, cotton, rice, wheat, soybeans, etc. or it isn’t manufactured. We've changed what we're using in structural pest control dramatically over the last thirty years, we did so because of efficacy. We shifted to a higher reliance to baits for cockroaches and ants because of their effectiveness.  However we must understand - if a pesticide is used in structural pest control it is because it has been used profitably elsewhere and for some time. We get it last.

New technology in structural pest control is usually old technology everywhere else where pesticides are needed and used. So what must we conclude from that? If these products have been used extensively, and for some time, then the effect on people and the environment must absolutely be known to EPA.

So what then must we conclude from that?  Logically we can only conclude they don’t care what the facts are. They've apparently made up their minds to advocate the same view as the environmental activists and are not going to let facts stand in the way.  These "Sue and Settle" lawsuits, which is nothing short of illegal collusion between environmentalists  and government bureaucrats, gives clear evidence of that.   Between regulators, activists, universities, researchers, self serving politicians, and a compliant media,  they have managed to keep the public ignorant and frightened through “filtered facts” which has now given the completely opposite view of what is actually occurring.

Their answer to any criticism is that we must adopt IPM or "green" pest control, which cannot be truly defined. Name one thing you know for sure about IPM! Everybody has their own perception as to what it means, what products can be used, what techniques should be used, where and when they should be used if ever. This will always be debated because IPM is an “ideology, not a methodology” and "green" is nothing short of neo-pagan mysticism.

If these products are so dangerous and EPA has the authority to remove products that are harmful from the market, and they have traced the results of use of these products over the years - why don’t they do it? They clearly have the power and they certainly have the desire -  why don’t they do it? It is quite simple - the facts must not support such an action.

Why are they promoting IPM to the tune of thousands of dollars a year in the form of grant money? Is it because there are no facts to support the elimination of these products and no matter how many times they change the rules (Food Quality Protection Act is one example along with re-registration requirements) to make it impossible to use pesticides they still can’t find the science to support the ban of pesticides, so they attempt to do it through a back door called IPM, organic or green pest control.  And why IPM or green pest control?  Because if there's no alternative there's no problem.  IPM and Green Pest Control are their representatives of an alternative.

The public is constantly told by the media that pesticides cause every conceivable malady.  When it is discovered they're wrong or the facts were deliberately perverted - as in the Alar case - it's passed off as journalism. The activists jump up and down swearing it was good journalism. The media jumps up and down defending their right to say what they want no matter what the real truth is and no matter who is hurt, and as in the Alar case, refusing to publicly acknowledge their misconduct.

What are the facts regarding pesticides? There is no evidence that pesticides have adversely effected the general health of the population! In fact, if you compared the world before modern pesticides and today we find that we are better fed and healthier than ever in this nation’s history or any other nation that has adopted extensive pesticide use. Only the countries who are unable or unwilling to adopt modern practices suffer the consequences of dystopia; poverty, misery, disease, squalor, hunger, starvation and early death.

There has been a great deal of talk regarding trace amounts of chemicals in our waters and land, and even trace amounts of over 200 manmade chemicals in our bodies. So what? This must be a good thing since the advent of these products people are living longer and healthier lives. The appearance of chemicals has nothing to do with toxicity. It's the dose makes the poison, not it's presence, and there are toxic chemicals necessary for good health which appear in detectable trace amounts in our bodies.

Still we have educated individuals teaching (and being taught) in our schools and universities that manmade chemicals are the great evil and we need to go "green" or “all-natural” or “organic”. Whatever those terms mean!  I love the claim that things are "chemical free".  Let's get our heads on right about chemicals.   The universe - including you - is made up of chemicals - if it's chemical free it doesn't exist. 

Most people have been misled into thinking that "organic" foods are healthier, and "organic" food is pesticide free.  That's blatantly false!  As far as the claim they taste better - taste is subjective and in point of fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Note the following information by Dr. Bruce Ames.

Dr. Bruce Ames (a biochemistry professor at the University of California) pointed out in 1987 that we ingest in our diet about 1.5 grams per day of {natural} pesticides. Those foods contain 10,000 times more, by weight, of {natural} pesticides than of man-made pesticide residues. More than 90% of the pesticides in plants are produced {naturally} by the plants, which help protect them from insects, mites, nematodes, bacteria, and fungi. Those natural pesticides may make up 5% to 10% of a plant's dry weight, and nearly half of them that were tested on experimental animals were carcinogenic. Americans should therefore feel unconcerned about the harmless, infinitesimal traces of synthetic chemicals to which they may be exposed. The highly publicized traces of synthetic pesticides on fruits and vegetables worried some people so much that they began to favor ``organically produced'' foods, thinking that they would not contain any pesticides. Most people are not aware that organic gardeners can legally use a great many pesticides, so long as they are not man-made. They can use nicotine sulfate, rotenone, and pyrethrum (derived from plants), or any poisons that occur naturally, such as lime, sulfur, borax, cyanide, arsenic, and fluorine.

This apparently is OK because its “natural”. Chemicals are chemicals and guess what - they all have chemical names. If I presented you the following menu would you eat it? By the way, these foods are known carcinogens.

Cream of Mushroom Soup, Carrots, Cherry Tomatoes, Celery, Mixed Roasted Nuts, Tossed Lettuce and Arugula with Basil-Mustard Vinaigrette, Roast Turkey, Bread Stuffing (with onions, celery, black pepper & mushrooms), Cranberry Sauce, Prime Rib of Beef with Parsley Sauce, Broccoli Spears, Baked Potato, Sweet Potato, Pumpkin Pie, Apple Pie, Fresh Apples, Grapes, Mangos, Pears, Pineapple, Red Wine, White Wine, Coffee, Tea., Jasmine Tea. (Source: American Council on Science and Health)

Here are the chemicals that make up this natural meal.

Hydrazines, aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, caffeic acid, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides, caffeic acid, furan derivatives, psoralens, aflatoxin, furfural, allyl isothiocyanate, caffeic acid, estragole, methyl eugenol, heterocyclic amines, acrylamide, ethyl alcohol, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, furan derivatives, furfural, dihydrazines, d-limonene, psoralens, quercetin glycosides, safrole,furan derivatives ,benzene, heterocyclic amines, psoralens,allyl isothiocyanate,ethyl alcohol, caffeic acid,ethyl alcohol, furfural,acetaldehyde, benzene, ethyl alcohol, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, furan derivatives, furfural,benzo(a)pyrene, coumarin, methyl eugenol, safrole,acetaldehyde, caffeic acid, coumarin, estragole, ethyl alcohol, methyl eugenol, quercetin glycosides, safrole,acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, caffeic acid, d-limonene, estragole, ethyl acrylate, quercetin glycosides,ethyl alcohol, ethyl carbamate,benzo(a)pyrene, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, 1,2,5,6-dibenz(a)anthracene, ethyl benzene, furan, furfural, hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinone, d-limonene, 4-methylcatechol,benzo(a)pyrene, quercetin

For those that read the chemicals listed above you will notice that some of them are repeated a number of times. I deliberately left the list in that way because you are getting a multiple dose in the above Thanksgiving meal.

Does that sound so bad now? It is unfortunate that so many in positions of authority and responsibility continue to allow filtered facts to become the conventional wisdom. More importantly it is impossible for any society to make intelligent long term decisions when preconceived notions are allowed to dictate what “facts” will be allowed to be presented. Then again, facts are confusing and that certainly is the last thing the public needs, after all it is the last thing the environmentalists and their minions want. It might interfere with all those scares they are constantly presenting as eminent disasters. That in turn would foul up contributions and then the greatest disaster of them all would occur. They would have to go out and get real jobs.

All of this is disturbing, but what I find most disturbing is the unwillingness of our industry's information deliverers - the trade journals and trade associations -  to stand up to these people and publish the truth. When we fail to stand up and be counted we're appeasers and enablers.  Eventually that will turn us into traitors to our own industry.

Editor's Note:  I ran this some years back but it's as noteworthy now as it was then, and as I read this I decided to run this every year at this time.  Best wishes to all!   RK