Laws on food products - whether they protect the children ?

August 12, 2017 17:51 | Feeding Children

The answer is no.As permitted by law, it can not be good for health, and just amazing what is allowed by law in the food and chemical industries.The use of pesticides and their directions on the label is monitored by the EPA.The level of pesticide residues in food is periodically checked by the Federal Service of medicines.That is why the currently existing laws and these organizations do not protect the apple that your child eats.

As "tested" pesticides and how to set them as "security»

Different amounts of pesticides to animals and then examine them in order to establish the effects of these chemicals.Beyond the obvious consequences, such as life or death, paralysis or retardation of growth, and examined under a microscope for the presence of tissue disorders.As soon find a level that does not lead to the appearance of detectable violations, this level is transferred to the people as a "maximum level" or "safe level" - the level of remaining pesticide products allowed by law.However, it is saf

e for the animal and for the legal committee, it may be dangerous to humans.We can not rely on these studies for the following reasons:

• Experience extrapolation to humans of results obtained in the animal experiments, littered with errors.How do you measure the level of intelligence of the rat?

• In the course of these studies measured short-term exposure rather than long-term consequences.Our concern for the future of our children is the accumulation of small amounts of remaining pesticides in food for a long period of time, which leads to violations years later,

perhaps even in the next generation.

• Approved by the EPA levels are designed for adults and are based on the consumption of products grown man in the 1960s.Agency's recommendations do not take into account the peculiarities of nutrition of children, who consume proportionally larger amount of poisoned food per kilogram of body weight.

• These results were obtained by artificial means.How to check the animals - this one, but as people eat - is quite another.Generally, one animal is checked for one or more chemicals.In fact, the baby may get a hundred different pesticides.Chemicals are Siner-ergy effect, that is, if they are taken all together, they can give more serious consequences than when used alone.Pesticides A and B can successfully pass the tests separately on different animals, but give them to one animal together, and they can get dangerous properties.The gradual accumulation of many different chemicals over a long period of time is a major problem, and research in this area is not performed.We believe that none of pesticides should not be called "safe".

• Independent research is usually more objective than the checks carried out by the EPA.The agency carries out checks parties.If you mix one hundred kilograms of potatoes and check the game, you get the average level of pesticide.But what if a few potatoes contain the most toxic chemicals, and the child will eat these potatoes?

• Inert substances remain without checks.Studying dangerous levels, the Federal Service of medicines does not take into account the health effects of inert or neutral ingredients.They are called "neutral" because it is not aimed at the destruction of the pests, but not because safe for health.However neutral substances can be dangerous.Environmental Protection Agency has recently established a 110 hazardous inert substances, but their content in foods are no standards or maximum allowable.In addition, the Federal Service of drugs does not monitor the content of inert ingredients in food products.pesticide manufacturers trade secrets stored inert substances and usually do not advertise them on the packages and labels.

deadlock with pesticides

Environmental Protection Agency requires that the content of pesticides in food products does not exceed the minimum

permissible level, taking into account the need for "the production of good-quality, high-grade, low-cost agricultural production."Agency puts on one scale toxic chemicals lurking in the risk of cancer, and other economic benefits.Simply put, they admit that the food carried the threat of cancer if it reduces prices and increases yields.The fact of attachment to the health of the price tag has been criticized by the National Academy of Sciences and the Natural Resources Defense Council.Are we - a nation that can not afford to give their children a healthy diet?

What can you do

By now you may have come to the conclusion that government agencies are more concerned with politics than health.Parents, do not expect help from the state.Farmers carry out a stronger lobby than the parents;Infants and children are not eligible to vote.The logical conclusion to which we come, based on the above facts, is to abandon all carcinogenic or neurotoxic and other hazardous chemicals entering the food and milk, and over time, this failure will enable us to have more clean water.This decisive step will cost

farmers and pesticide industry with a turnover of six billion dollars, but it can be done.Here's how.

Just say "no!»

not buy poisonous products. pressure consumers, especially parents, have decided many health and social problems;it can also be made clearer our food.Food and consumer pressure goal is very simple: parents ask food without pesticides in a store, shop orders only products that do not contain pesticides, manufacturers, and manufacturers, so you want to stop the use of pesticides.We are confident that this is the only "law" that would work.Why?Because motivation is clear: to protect your health and the health of their children.