The other one when we’re talking about this cocktail effect, not just a formulation, but in farming, you know farmers just don’t use one pesticide. When these pesticides are approved, multiple pesticides are approved for a crop and when I’m using the word pesticide, that’s the generic word for all these ‘cides’: herbicide insecticide, you know fungicide and so on, pesticide is the generic word. But what will happen in any normal crop, there’ll be several insecticides, there’ll be several herbicides approved, fungicides, maybe miticides. And the expectation is that all of them are used in a normal crop production cycle and that’s the reason when we do comprehensive testing of food virtually everything, conventional food doesn’t have one residue, it has multiple residues. And on top of that we don’t eat just one food, we quite a range of foods. So we’re getting a whole range of multiple residues from multiple foods and so we’re getting these cocktails. There’s absolutely no requirement for the testing of cocktails. The assumption that somehow that the toxicity level is going to stay the same again, no change. But where there is testing, and once again it is by the independent scientists and researchers who publish in peer review journals, scientific gold standard, these cocktail mixtures are synergistic, not just additive – additive means 1 and 1 equals two. Synergistic means that it will equal more than two, in other words three , four and I have some papers showing one and one can equal 100 or one and one could equal 1000. That’s the way that you can actually increase the toxicity through the synergistic effects. What to me is really concerning is this. When this test, done in the United States, looking at the number of chemicals in placental blood, in other words, what is crossing the placenta into the developing fetus, and in the US they found up at 232 chemicals, but most babies are getting hundreds. And we have zero science as to what that means. What are the synergistic effects? That is a concern. And for me, I really want to say this is a total regulatory failure to keep our children safe that we’re not keeping these chemicals are not from our children, but worse than that is this data free assumption that somehow this is safe and I use this word, I keep on using this word data free. They have no evidence whatsoever: zero and based on zero evidence that make an assumption. It’s safe. That’s not science.
Prefer to listen? Click here.