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
there are claims that these chemicals cause disease more than death, although perhaps an earlier death, but how to measure that, against an average?
No access here to Guardian. It seems they consider fluorocarbons. Molecules with carbon-fluorine bonds are indeed rare in nature, but one could not call them completely absent. Most common now are teflon (TM), refrigerant fluids, and various waste products. C-F bond is very resistant to chemical (including enzyme) attack because the electrons all go to F atom. (UV light can break these bonds, which relates to refrigerants and ozone in stratosphere.) All ingested fluorocarbons will exit unchanged. That at least is highly probable prevailing view, and readily testable (probably done with mice). There are also fluorinated gases used in anesthesia, which are exhaled unchanged. == "i wonder how many chemicals my own body synthesizes ..." Counting how many would not be a simple nor (dare I say) important goal. We can say that no chemicals with C-F bonds are biosynthesized. But all the molecules that constitute you are made new every day. Some parts of your bones are about 20 years old, tendons/ligaments 10 years, and all the rest of you is newer/younger. Hematocytes may be among the youngest; replaced monthly. We are all younger than we look or feel Old people (incl me) whose bones did contain radioactive isotopes from atmospheric testing of thermonuclear bombs have peed those out decades ago. That is the way of animals. Plants making wood are different; that stuff can archive thousands of years of chemistry.
