Source: Synthetic chemicals in food system creating health burden of $2.2tn a year, report finds | Pfas | The Guardian . . . The report is the work of dozens of scientists from organisations including the Institute of Preventive Health, the Center for Environmental Health, Chemsec, and various universities in the US and UK, including the University of Sussex and Duke University. It was led by a core team from Systemiq, a company that invests in enterprises aimed at fulfilling the UN sustainable development goals and the Paris agreement on climate change. The authors said they had focused on the four chemical types examined because “they are among the most prevalent and best studied worldwide, with robust evidence of harm to human and ecological health”. One of the team, Philip Landrigan, a paediatrician and professor of global public health at Boston College, called the report a “wake-up call”. He said: “The world really has to wake up and do something about chemical pollution. I would argue that the problem of chemical pollution is every bit as serious as the problem with climate change.” . . . Ordinarily I wouldn't care for a "hair on fire" report like this any more than the assertions of vitamin advocates or specific foods. But when they state, ". . . up to $2.2tn a year . . .." combined with gutting empirical science in the US Federal government, well it crosses my threshold of note. I am OK with specific, narrow based "synthetics" studied in a properly design report. Even the advocate and critical reports when narrowed work for me. But this 'shotgun' approach against all synthetics with unsubstantiated economic claims ... turns me off. It is too close to what what Health and Human Services is descending into. Part of my skepticism is my 76th birthday coming up in a couple of days. If this is such a crisis, why am I still alive (or you!) So I'm just ranting about science done badly by those who should have known better. Bob Wilson
