You have to scroll an absurdly long time to find it but this is the key sentence:
> Current chlormequat concentrations in urine from this study and others suggest that individual sample donors were exposed to chlormequat at levels several orders of magnitude below the reference dose (RfD) published by the U.S. EPA (0.05 mg/kg bw/day) and the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value published by the European Food Safety Authority (0.04 mg/kg bw/day).
The levels reported in this study are so negligible but it gets a lot more clicks on your study if you present this data as "chlormequat was detectable in X% of samples." Statistically significant but they don't mention the concentration at all in the abstract, which is just as an important finding.
>Toxicological studies suggest that exposure to chlormequat can reduce fertility and harm the developing fetus at doses lower than those used by regulatory agencies to set allowable daily intake levels.
I think they are worried about this. Perhaps the levels are set too high?
Also there's hundreds of similarly synthetic substances, each not individually going over set limits, but perhaps the resulting cocktail causes "death by a thousand cuts".
"Trust the science" doesn't mean much. In the 70s, studies showed that jeans caused cancer. And yogurt. Other, real carcinogenic compounds were not studied. It takes ages for the dust to settle down and have a decent consensus. In the mean time, it's best to be cautionary.
> Compared to these previous studies in Europe, the median levels measured in our study of U.S. samples from 2017 to 2022 were lower, while the median level in 2023 samples were comparable to samples from Sweden, and lower than UK samples
> Current chlormequat concentrations in urine from this study and others suggest that individual sample donors were exposed to chlormequat at levels several orders of magnitude below the reference dose (RfD) published by the U.S. EPA (0.05 mg/kg bw/day) and the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value published by the European Food Safety Authority (0.04 mg/kg bw/day).
My two takeaways. The main source in the US seems to be from import and it's several magnitudes lower than acceptable daily intake. This might obviously change, but still reasonable to keep in mind.
The next hundred years is probably going to be grappling with how many toxic chemicals we allowed at 'safe' levels because it was inconvenient to industry to ban them the same way we're floored by the casual irradiation of the early 20th century.
That's funny, because as researchers are finding out, the interaction of many chemicals are having significant effects at concentrations 1 to 2 orders of magnitude below the "safe" values of acceptable daily intakes.
They funded a state-of-the-art ecotoxicology research lab next to where I live, that was going to do pioneering work in the field, within a university-industry cooperation framework. As coincidence would have it, once the first results started coming in, there was a lot less interest from the industry in cooperation. The lab now runs at a fraction of its capacity.
People are going to scream about the cost of remediating all of this (hundreds of billions, if not trillions), but it was just shareholders through limited liability corporations stealing from taxpayers (who will end up with the remediation bill through taxes) by way of the market and government, with enormous aggregate harm a second order effect. So long, and thanks for all the poison.
> The estimated cost to the federal government of cleaning up environmental contamination, referred to as environmental liabilities, was $613 billion in fiscal year 2021. This is an increase from $465 billion in fiscal year 2017.
So many industries are only profitable because their costs for pollution and environmental damages aren't included and by the time that bill comes due the company and all the shareholders are long gone and the cost gets dumped on the public.
Man, really puts into perspective how silly it is for me to be paranoid about deploying a change for a webapp with 100 DAU, while agricorp businesses have no problems accidentally poisoning the planet.
Same as with the fossil fuel industry - the chloralkali industry as a whole is going to end up net negative all time, with the cost of cleanup exceeding all the total profits of that entire chemical company subcategory. We've already seen it with asbestos, it's going to be playing out similarly for a number of industries.
Organic may not be much better, as many of the chemicals approved for organic crops are even worse. So, yes, regulation has failed. Good luck holding anyone accountable.
A friend of mine owns / operates a few hundred acre certified organic Avocado ranch in Carpinteria, CA. He explained to me it's mostly just paperwork and the organic pesticides / fertilizers are just as, if not more, gnarly than the non-organic ones. He said it just makes people feel good and there is virtually zero difference. Obviously a single source but one I hold very credible.
Sounds like your buddy is just using the organic title for marketing purposes. That is unfortunate, but not uncommon.
Here’s a source that doesn’t fit your buddy’s description…
Along the central coast of California, conventional strawberry growers apply chemicals like methyl bromide, an internationally banned substance that is no longer being manufactured, but is stockpiled for exemptions to the ban, which these growers exploit. Alternatively they have been experimenting with methyl iodide and other hardcore synthetic chemicals. They hire undocumented laborers to apply them.
Organic strawberry growers, on the other hand, use crop rotation of a brassica crop as a bio-fumigant, and they grow rows of alfalfa as a trap crop where pest infestations can be literally vacuumed up with a tractor implement.
In this case, there is a huge difference.
It is true that the National Organic Program is a joke, since they let the board get taken over by corporate big ag long ago. That doesn’t mean “it just makes people feel good and there is virtually zero difference”. In some cases it does, but to paint the whole thing as such is denying the larger reality.
"It is true that the National Organic Program is a joke, since they let the board get taken over by corporate big ag long ago. That doesn’t mean “it just makes people feel good and there is virtually zero difference”. In some cases it does, but to paint the whole thing as such is denying the larger reality."
The national program is the one that matters, right? Most people consuming organic produce in the US are affected by this. Isn't that the larger reality? The people who know and buy from their local organic strawberry farmer has to be the .0001 edge case.
The NOP is what I’m referring to as making a difference.
It is at the same time also much less adherent to the philosophy of organics than it could be.
Both are true at the same time. The standards are weakened by big ag, but they are still much less toxic and polluting than conventional standards (or lack there of)
I have been involved in organic agriculture, including strawberry production, for more than 15 years. I do consulting, regulatory compliance, and data analysis.
Not currently focused on strawberries, but cannabis has a similar story. The organic alternatives, even the hardcore ones, are less toxic and have much less residual than what is regularly used in conventional agriculture.
The general difference with organic pesticides and herbicides is they tend to be less persistent in the environment (lower half life, less off-target impact, etc). Organic farming was never supposed to be about human health, it was supposed to be about environmental health. The program was also suppose dto use chemicals as a last resort, instead relying on different agricultural techniques from the typical mass monoculture farm. Instead it has been mostly hijacked by people just doing the paperwork and switching which chemicals they're spraying.
Like what specifically? It is certainly true that there's little difference between naturally and synthetically sourced chemicals of the same identity (ideally, where supply chain doesn't affect composition)
But at least naively, these all seem like the least concern: Fairly well behaved nutrient stuff like phosphate rock, nitrates, sulfur, etc.; while all the concerning compounds are synthetic or semisynthetic (besides arsenic lead etc. which have been out of use for a long time right?!)
AFAIK there is no natural source for most of the concerning pesticides/herbicides like glyphosate, chlormequat, paraquat, aminopyralid, maybe synthetic/semisynthetic pyrethrenoids etc. while the much smaller list of "natural" pestidides (pyrethrum, any others?) aren't concerning because they degrade quickly etc.
But I'm also assuming here that "approved for organic use" means "the substance can be trivially extracted from natural sources" which might not be true
Rotenone is another example. It used to be allowed for use in organic farming, but in 2019 it was shown to be dangerous and was banned for organic farming. If one organic pesticide that was once considered harmless turned out to be dangerous, there can be others that we don't know about yet.
ooh good example thanks. yeah it's super scary mitochondrial ~~uncoupler like MPTP and paraquat~~ actually a scary mitochondrial inhibitor? but its soil/water half life is only a few days
It depends. I suspect large organic brands are more likely to be like that.
But locally I've visited some of the small farms we buy produce from, and they use very minimal sprays, or none at all and instead plant companion plants that attract the pests to them instead of the main crop.
It's hard to say "worse", but for a lot of organic alternatives the problem is "more"--it requires significantly more applications/frequencies than synthetic alternatives. This can contribute to run off and groundwater contamination.
> This can contribute to run off and groundwater contamination.
More than straight up synthetic nitrogen fertilizer? Or any of the many other commonly used inputs that stick around for way longer than the organic alternatives?
You sound like you’re not convinced that I actually do this for a living, and continue to make up a reality that suits your preconceptions.
presumably because they more readily transfer across membranes and various barriers in the body? That's an interesting point, is something organically derived more easily integrated into biological tissues than something of synthetic origin? I'm not sure that logic is sound but it's an intriguing thought.
You can dip your hand into a bucket of pure elemental mercury, and you're generally fine (though I wouldn't recommend it if you have open cuts or wounds).
On the other hand, dimethylmercury (an organic compound with mercury in it) will readily absorb through your skin (and latex gloves!) and is so potently toxic that a few drops of the stuff will kill you.
None of this is tob say that synthetic, non-orhanic compounds are in any way certain to be safer. However, organic compounds certainly do have advantages in integrating in the body.
> That's an interesting point, is something organically derived more easily integrated into biological tissues than something of synthetic origin?
I don't get what you mean with organically derived. Organic chemistry covers a lot of synthetic chemicals. There is no reason to assume that organic pesticides are more readily absorbed by the body. There is also no agreed upon definition of organic pesticides, they are not limited to pesticides synthesized from plants. It also includes several minerals.
It is allowed on food crops in Canada and the European Union. The US in 2018 removed it from being barred on import products, which really opened up its use in industries targeting exports to the US. So the US rise in this chemical is almost certainly due to Canadian products.
Which is such an incredible shame for my country, Canada. It is shameful how often we trade risks to human health for minor production benefits. Canada and the US produce vastly more food than they consume, so the arguments about the necessity to push production efficiency at the cost of health is a non-starter.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released for public comment its proposed decision to register the first food uses of the pesticide chlormequat chloride to provide farmers with an additional tool to help increase crop yield. Before registering these uses, EPA will need to establish tolerances in or on barley, oat, triticale, and wheat.
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-proposes-register-new-use...
I don't understand why it still seems to be a huge secret.They've genetically modified seeds so that home gardening of fruits and veggies seeds cannot be used to plant future gardens.They tell us that we're using to many antibiotics,yet antibiotics are given to cows,pigs,chickens,the very meats we consume.Maybe that's why antibiotics are being said to not work and not human consumption.The very living conditions of meat consumption is also tainted. Meats are being grown in labs stating a shortage of food yet they are using chemicals like the ones listed here to reduce the foods we need. They recently raised the retirement age to 70 years old. They are trying to use chemicals which cause infertility in humans (read the article here keyword infertile). It's all about controlling population, people not living to retire,yet using them as lab rats while they are on this side of the dirt.Plausable deniability be dammed .
Has anyone tested cows & chickens? Dogs? General Mills owns Blue Buffalo. It looks like it's been in animal feed since 2007, and purebred dogs have had a noticeable fertility decline since about 2010. "Reverse Flynn effect" started 2011 (steadily decreasing IQs across the board in several countries) as did "trans" population explosion (in same countries.) Ppl think I'm crazy for thinking these issues are population control, so I'm happy to see I'm not alone.
Body burning screening for toxic chemical accumulation should be a regular part of every American's yearly physical checkup with their doctor - which itself is an increasingly rare phenomenon, many people only go to doctors and hospitals after getting very sick as they can't afford to have a regular doctor or preventative health program. A body burden program would lead to the identification of the most problematic industrial and agricultural chemical products, and so it would be blocked by lobbyists from the fossil fuel, petrochemical, agribusiness, and manufacturing sectors.
America has the worst public health care / food safety system in the industrialized world, and not even a pandemic that killed over a million American citizens resulted in any political pressure to change the system.
> Body burning screening for toxic chemical accumulation should be a regular part of every American's yearly physical checkup with their doctor
Is it just me or are yearly physicals and primary care doctors nearly worthless in practice (not in theory)? For adults, not kids.
Anything truly urgent is better served by urgent care or emergency room. They are useful for referrals for specialists when you actually have a serious issue. The screening you suggest seems like a good idea yet so far beyond the type of care they actually offer.
Its like they are the 1st tier tech support who cant really do anything and exist as a filter.
Many family doctors are like this, I think they want to minimize their work and many simply don't have the experience necessary. Would recommend you find a doctor at a bigger institution that wants to be there.
Primary care seems kind of like a personal trainer or other accountability person. Sure you can take your heart-rate, blood pressure, EKG, etc. and make assessments on your own (I got a pretty thorough setup for ~$150), but most people need the structure or else they won't even check their BPM.
Lab work is the one area that seems worthwhile. Bloodwork can give you early signals for tons of potential problems.
On the one hand, as a statistician memorably put it, “doesn’t matter how big the soup bowl is, you still need the same size spoon to taste what kind of soup it is.”
On the other hand, yeah these particular convenience samples seem almost deliberately weird. The entire apparent spike in 2023 seems to correspond to a one-off total switch to buying random bulk urine from Florida.
But it does grow with variability and effect size. And of processes you don't understand, you don't know these. So you often do need a big spoon, and to taste more than just the top. "This noodle soup is just water (p < 0.05)."
Having little personal knowledge in this area of food growth, harvest and production, then of course any pre-market execution practices for shelf lives or processing; what are the ill effects of exposure specifically relating to birth/fetal deficiencies?
Perhaps I'm a bad looker-up but I can't find the relative answer (seemingly) in various animal studies linked, outside of noting reproductive issues. Thanks in advance!
Treat this study with a grain of salt. The Environmental Working Group is essentially a lobbying group for the organic food industry. They tend to stigmatize "conventional" farming in pseudo-scientific ways to make organic food seem better or healthier, when the differences are typically just marketing.
Another reminder that most food produced by industrial processes is poisoning us. News of this chemical’s prevalence may be news, but the general story is not.
Yet nothing has changed, nor should anyone expect otherwise. Big Ag achieved regulatory capture and can afford to delay indefinitely (if not outright stop) any meaningful change from happening.
Because life expectancy is nearly at an all time high. Folks that are 50 or older grew up playing with all sorts of toxic chemicals and most of us are still here and fine. If anything you are more likely to become ill by excessive worrying than the actual chemicals.
Our gains in life expectancy during the last 100 years are probably mostly due to vaccines, antibiotics, and anti-smoking campaigns, completely unrelated to whatever chemicals are in our food. These are separate issues.
> Current chlormequat concentrations in urine from this study and others suggest that individual sample donors were exposed to chlormequat at levels several orders of magnitude below the reference dose (RfD) published by the U.S. EPA (0.05 mg/kg bw/day) and the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value published by the European Food Safety Authority (0.04 mg/kg bw/day).
The levels reported in this study are so negligible but it gets a lot more clicks on your study if you present this data as "chlormequat was detectable in X% of samples." Statistically significant but they don't mention the concentration at all in the abstract, which is just as an important finding.