This is an approximation of the number of approved chemicals authorized for use and distribution throughout the world. Can you guess how many of the tested chemicals were determined unsafe for human exposure by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA?)
5 of these chemicals were banned prior to the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. 4 more were banned in 1984. The agency hasn’t banned another chemical under the TSCA in over three decades.
HAVE I GOT YOUR ATTENTION?
In the “Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,” the CDC reported that the average person in the United States has at least 212 chemicals in their blood and urine. [Centers for Disease Control. National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. CDC.]
These chemicals have been found in NEWBORNS crossing the “protective placenta” and circulating throughout the developing fetus. The following paragraph was taken from a publication by the Environmental Working Group (July 14, 2005)
Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns
“Of the 287 chemicals we detected in umbilical cord blood, we know that 180 cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests. The dangers of pre- or post-natal exposure to this complex mixture of carcinogens, developmental toxins and neurotoxins have never been studied.”
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU WERE EXPOSED TO THESE STATISTICS? (MAYBE NEVER!)
Approximately 1000-2500 new chemical applications are filed with the EPA for approval on an annual basis. The bureaucratic process and guidelines impede the EPA from performing thorough evaluations.
“Because it receives virtually no data from industry, EPA relies on estimates of key parameters to judge if the chemical might be toxic to humans, for the vast majority of new chemicals.”
THE COMMON SENSE PERSPECTIVE
Many argue the quantities of innocuous and toxic chemicals is so trivial, safety levels established by the “authoritarian community” remain within safety limits. I have some questions for these professionals.
How can anyone test for safe levels when hundreds of chemicals are circulating throughout the body AT THE SAME TIME? Independently the chemicals may be deemed safe; what are the SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS?
Can we rely on the term “safe levels of chemicals.” Hyper-sensitivity must be accepted as a reality that poses serious dangers for many children and adults. If ONE PEANUT can cause a person to suffer an anaphylactic crisis, why should the consumer believe exposure to small amounts of chemicals couldn’t result in a similar hypersensitivity reaction resulting in a similar crisis?
Cancer, Asthma, and Autism are just three examples of health maladies that have grown substantially as we witness a potential correlation with the growing exposure to environmental and food chemicals. Measuring cause and effect is nearly impossible with the number of variables, however, assuming chemicals play NO ROLE in the toxic outcomes and diseases we see on a regular basis is likely naive.
Most of us assume we are free of these chemical toxicities because they produce no symptoms interfering with the quality of our lives. Whether you agree or disagree with their “dangers,” chemicals are another substance the body must store if it is unable to metabolize them. Reducing exposure to these sources of chemicals simply makes GOOD COMMON SENSE. Conversely, I never heard anyone suggest that better health is achieved by increasing chemical exposure and consumption.
WHAT STEPS CAN YOU TAKE?
Use natural cleaning products in the house and at work
Use natural cosmetics
Eat foods that have not been exposed to pesticides and do not contain chemical additives.
Drink filtered water
Every step taken to provide your body a safer, healthier environment reduces the risk for common diseases.
Is this what our future FARMERS will look like in the fields they farm?
DO YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE TIME TO REDUCE YOUR EXPOSURE TO THESE CHEMICALS AND THEIR POTENTIAL LIFE ALTERING EFFECTS?