I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Persistent Organic Pollutants and vitamin A status from a 1971 study
Excuse me for this late reply to your comment!
As your comments often are a bit thought provoking, they can be a bit hard to respond to, which I want say as a compliment to you.
First of the problem of DDT is not very old and still very present for everyone on this planet. Wikipedia says (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT):
- United Kingdom didn't ban DDT until 1984, which is just 39 years ago
- United States of America sold DDT over-seas until 1985, and that year they sold 300 tons of DDT
- The "global" ban on DDT just happened in 2004 at the Stockholm Convention of Persistent Organic Pollutants
- It was estimated that in 2013 a total of 3000-4000 tons of DDT were produced for "disease vector control" which is probably mostly against malaria. Of that total estimation of DDT usage in 2013, India was using 2786 tons.
- "Depending on environmental conditions, its soil half-life can range from 22 days to 30 years. Routes of loss and degradation include runoff, volatilization, photolysis and aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation. Due to hydrophobic properties, in aquatic ecosystems DDT and its metabolites are absorbed by aquatic organisms and adsorbed on suspended particles, leaving little DDT dissolved in the water (however, its half-life in aquatic environments is listed by the National Pesticide Information Center as 150 years[71])."
- "DDT, DDE and DDD magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptor birds concentrating more chemicals than other animals in the same environment. They are stored mainly in body fat. DDT and DDE are resistant to metabolism; in humans, their half-lives are 6 and up to 10 years, respectively."
- "DDT is an endocrine disruptor.[91][92] It is considered likely to be a human carcinogen although the majority of studies suggest it is not directly genotoxic.[93][94][95] DDE acts as a weak androgen receptor antagonist, but not as an estrogen.[96] "
Note the half-life of DDT in human bodies being said, without a reference at wikipedia, to be 6-10 years. Perhaps that is a similar half-life time as for carotenoids in the human body? I read that you have had some shorter episodes of carotenemia even after reducing your intake of vitamin A for many years. Both DDT and vitamin A share a few similarities like:
- Both bio-accumulate in animals
- Both exists everywhere in the food chain, they can't be completely avoided
- Both have been heavily promoted as being good for humanity
Another important point that is known which I think is easy to miss is that DDT and other Persistent Organic Pollutants don't seem to affect people in a linear dose-dependent matter. A medium-high dose might be worse than a high dose (at least in the short term). See the PS. which is a repost of an older comment of mine about obeseogens, like DDT.
Personally I don't know if it matters wheter a toxins causes harm directly or by affecting hormones or by disrupting enzymes like glyphosate does. They all lead to accumulation of more toxicity in the body in the long-run.
I believe glyphosate is the DDT of our time, and it is our time to ban glyphosate.
Bury Bayer!
Stop glyphosate!
PS.
"It is a bit of topic but I will take the opportunity to add the concept of obesogens, toxic compounds that make people either directly fat or indirectly fat by increasing their appetite. You mentioned in the post that endogenous fat production stores toxins and I don't disagree but I think like Jenny mentioned earlier in this thread, endogenous made fat are toxin sinks, which can help to protect the body by binding up excess circulating toxins, like retinol without retinol binding protein 4 (RBP-4).
Robert Lustig, known for his 2013 paper: Fructose: it's "alcohol without the buzz" (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23493539/); was last year (2022 May) part of a presentation with three scientists talking about obesogens. I preferred the last presentation by Chris Kassotis but the most technical presentation by Jerrold J. Heindel was also interesting. It is a 1h 24min lecture called:
"Obesogens and the Obesity Pandemic: A focus on prevention"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huTmXzeCvl0
Here is a description of the lecture from the video description.
"According to the World Health Organization, obesity prevalence has almost tripled since 1975 with more than 1.9 billion adults, 340 million children ages 5-19, and 39 million children under 5 years of age estimated to be overweight or obese. During this webinar Robert H. Lustig, MD, MSL, Jerrold J. Heindel, PhD, and Chris Kassotis, PhD, presented a set of newly published reviews on the impact of obesogens. They also discussed how reducing exposures to these hormone disrupting chemicals found in consumer and industrial products like makeup, shampoos, soaps, plastics, cleaners, pesticides, food packaging and more can play a critical role in preventing obesity.
Obesity I: Overview and molecular and biochemical mechanisms While many attribute obesity primarily to an excess of calories and secondarily to two behaviors (gluttony and sloth), scientific evidence demonstrates the importance of hormone-receptor interactions in adiposity, which is unrelated to either behavior or calories. Dr. Robert H. Lustig covered four specific hormone paradigms: 1. The role of hormones and receptors in the development and growth of adipose tissue; 2. the difference between obesity and chronic disease, and the role of three different fat depots in either disease pathogenesis or prevention; 3. The role of insulin in leptin resistance; and 4. Specific time windows of hormone sensitivity (e.g. the fetal and postnatal periods).
Obesity II: Establishing causal links between chemical exposures and obesity Obesity is a multifactorial disease with both genetic and environmental components. The prevailing view is that obesity results from an imbalance between energy intake and expenditure caused by overeating and insufficient exercise. Dr. Jerrold J. Heindel discussed another environmental element that can alter the balance between energy intake and energy expenditure: obesogens. Obesogens are a subset of environmental chemicals that act as endocrine disruptors affecting metabolic endpoints. The obesogen hypothesis posits that exposure to endocrine disruptors and other chemicals can alter the development and function of the adipose tissue, liver, pancreas, gastrointestinal tract, and brain, thus changing the set point for control of metabolism. Obesogens can determine how much food is needed to maintain homeostasis and thereby increase the susceptibility to obesity. The most sensitive time for obesogen action is in utero and early childhood, in part via epigenetic programming that can be transmitted to future generations. This webinar explored the evidence supporting the obesogen hypothesis and highlighted knowledge gaps that have prevented widespread acceptance as a contributor to the obesity pandemic. Critically, the obesogen hypothesis changes the narrative from curing obesity to preventing obesity.
Obesity III: Obesogen Assays: Limitations, Strengths, and New Directions Despite a growing need for well-understood models for evaluating adipogenic and potential obesogenic contaminants, there has been a reliance on decades-old in vitro models that have not been appropriately managed by cell line providers. There has been a quick rise in available in vitro models in the last ten years, including commercial availability of human mesenchymal stem cell and preadipocyte models; these models require more comprehensive validation but demonstrate real promise in improved translation to human metabolic health. While diverse rodent models exist for evaluating putative obesogenic and/or adipogenic chemicals in a physiologically relevant context, Dr. Chris Kassotis discussed how increasing capabilities have been identified for alternative model organisms such as Drosophila, C. elegans, zebrafish, and medaka in metabolic health testing. These models have several appreciable advantages, including most notably their size, rapid development, large brood sizes, and ease of high-resolution lipid accumulation imaging throughout the organisms, and are anticipated to expand the capabilities of metabolic health research.""
https://ggenereux.blog/discussion/topic/fat/?part=9
PPS.
From the same wikipedia article on DDT regarding chronic toxicity:
"Chronic toxicity
Primarily through the tendency for DDT to build up in areas of the body with high lipid content, chronic exposure can affect reproductive capabilities and the embryo or fetus.[99]
- A review article in The Lancet states: "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation".[43]
- Other studies document decreases in semen quality among men with high exposures (generally from indoor residual spraying).[100]
... - Indirect exposure of mothers through workers directly in contact with DDT is associated with an increase in spontaneous abortions.[99]
- Other studies found that DDT or DDE interfere with proper thyroid function in pregnancy and childhood.[75][102]
- Mothers with high levels of DDT circulating in their blood during pregnancy were found to be more likely to give birth to children who would go on to develop autism.[103][104]"
PPPS. Attached a figure from the wikipedia article on DDT showing an example of bio-accumulation/bio-magnification.
Uploaded files:
Note the half-life of DDT in human bodies being said, without a reference at wikipedia, to be 6-10 years. Perhaps that is a similar half-life time as for carotenoids in the human body? I read that you have had some shorter episodes of carotenemia even after reducing your intake of vitamin A for many years. Both DDT and vitamin A share a few similarities like:
- Both bio-accumulate in animals
- Both exists everywhere in the food chain, they can't be completly avoided
- Both have been heavily promoted as being good for humanity
"It is a bit of topic but I will take the opportunity to add the concept of obesogens, toxic compounds that make people either directly fat or indirectly fat by increasing their appetite. You mentioned in the post that endogenous fat production stores toxins and I don't disagree but I think like Jenny mentioned earlier in this thread, endogenous made fat are toxin sinks, which can help to protect the body by binding up excess circulating toxins, like retinol without retinol binding protein 4 (RBP-4).
I edited my previous comment by using: PS, PPS and PPPS as per your friendly suggestion. Thank you for that and your compliment!
Regarding promoting harmful things as good I think it is because the world is run by umknown or known insane people. By the definition of the word insane it is impossible to predict what someone insane will do but it is never truly good for anyone long-term. The insane seem to be particularly fond of gas lighting, making you think what really is happening is not happening and moving the blame away from themselves. Turning everything they can upside-down and inside-out, which is no fun at all.
On the point of less appetite I hope like you it is because of less overall toxicity. Though if you sometimes need to force yourself to eat I think you might need to consider switch up your food sources, if just switching brands or where the food is grown/raised, as per the problem of bio-accumulation. If there is just one type of substance, known or unknown, anywhere in your food that can accumulate over-time it will eventually cause problems.
The first and best option is cleaner and better foods, but changing up one's food source a bit I believe it might help to spread out eventual bio-accumulating substances in a wider array thus reducing the maximum concentration of any one type of bio-accumulating substance.
Though as I heard about obesogens for example it is not always a linear relationship between toxic effects and concentration. It is more of a risk management perspective. For example if one is eating the exact same breakfast everyday, cooked in the same pot, in the same way and with the same ingredients there is a higher risk of potentially accumulating a larger amount something problematic, known or unknown.
@david You're welcome. I'm glad the little correction didn't dampen your mood 🙂 Insanity seems to come out of every corner these days: the health care system is upside down, the social fabric is bombarded with abstruse ideas about gender identity, the media is cooking up narratives about climate change that demand immediate and radical changes in behavior that ultimately just reinforce population control (but who's not willing to suffer for a good cause? Climate activism as the new cult!), degenerate stuff is called art that never really deserved the name. Yeah, it's no fun at all.
Mixing food sources is a good idea. It might not only reduce the bioaccumulation of toxins, but also increase the absorption of valuable nutrients that may be lacking in some products. On the other hand, diversifying food sources might actually be counterproductive if you believe there is an ideal food, than it would probably be better to stick to that one source or pan or whatever food comes in contact with. I am not sure that such an ideal food actually exists. For pans, it's probably ideal to use non-stick cookware, not Teflon, but stainless steel, iron, or copper. Although copper can be problematic, so can iron.
I agree except I would never use copper pans. My grandmother had many beautiful copper pots hanging on one of her kitchen walls and I once asked her:
-Why do you never use any of your copper pots?
I believe she answered something like:
-They are only there for decoration, you can get sick from using them.
Just one comment on banning glyphosate: the problem is that current farming practices depend on it, so yields also do. Another problem is that we would replace something toxic with a short half life in soil, and that has been well studied, with something that may be even more harmful and toxic.
I know the short half life doesn't seem to work, as G seems to seep into our food supply even though in theory it shouldn't, but would this really be better with a newer, maybe worse substance?
I'm not sure if there's information or discussion about how farming would look like without G, what farmers would use instead etc.
btw Christian: what's wrong with "freundliche Grüße"?
I feel sorry for your totally embarrasing comment. I don't know if you have become enamored with your captors, famously called the Stockholm syndrome, or if you are just a Bayer-boy.
No matter what, I think the defeatist attitude that you have displayed in your comment is one of the absolute low-points of humanity, I think it is the exact opposite of the proverb:
"As long as there is life, there is hope"
Banning glyphosate would be a pro-active move since there is a serious problem with glyphosate resistant weeds that will probably only grow and grow. See this quote from the 2021 study called "History and Outlook for Glyphosate-Resistant Crops"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34109481/
"Unfortunately, herbicide companies have not commercialized a new MoA [Modes-of-Action] for over 30 years and have nearly exhausted the useful herbicide trait possibilities. Today, glyphosate-based crop systems are still mainstays of weed management, but they cannot keep up with the capacity of weeds to evolve resistance. Growers desperately need new technologies, but no technology with the impact of glyphosate and GR crops is on the horizon. Although the expansion of GR crop traits is possible into new geographic areas and crops such as wheat and sugarcane and could have high value, the Roundup Ready® revolution is over. Its future is at a nexus and dependent on a variety of issues."
A ban of glyphosate would of course have to be done in phases, because a quick swift might cause serious problems similar to what happened on Sri Lanka. Setting a long-term goal of banning glyphosate in phases will also put huge incentives on people to develop better alternatives.
To learn more, you should perhaps listen more to people like the farmer Gabe Brown who talks a lot about regenerative agriculture. Here is a link to his great 2014 presentation [59 min] called "Keys To Building a Healthy Soil", where he also talks about how one have to wean the soil out of glyphosate over several years but that it is worth it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk
PS. I hope you didn't miss my earlier comment where I also mentioned Alan Savory's 2013 presentation [22 min] called:
"How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
The interesting question I think is how much of that about 20 % of the world's land area that are deserts could be made somewhat productive and how would such a land transformation affect humanity?
National Geographic's article citing the approximate amount of deserts on planet earth: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/desert/