If you think that a build up means nothing then why do you constantly refer to exposure levels being below FDA limits
No matter how you divert the argument, you are still not providing anything to substantiate your position, which is at base flawed. Anyway, the FDA "tolerances", as they are called, are most often established from the laboratory settings I mentioned earlier. Hence the practical build-up you are speaking of being innumerably less than what
lab tests establish as being 'carcinogenic' in an
acute fashion. The implications of this are something you are continually choosing to ignore, whether deliberately or via ignorance.
You know exposure numbers are there for what you are currently eating, not what is collecting in your body.
This is incorrect. While the FDA's 'nPPM' tolerance sets the amount of contaminant allowed in the food
at the time, the 'nPPM' itself is established using toxicological build-up data - i.e., the 'nPPM' tolerance is set a limit that reflects the ability for consistent consumption. Now, this 'maximum build-up level' is still often leagues below what was established in the laboratory setting. Meaning, as I said before,
you could consume the food for a life-time and still be ten-fold below what was shown to proliferate cancer cells and/or cancer gene promoters in a laboratory setting. Your argument is similar to saying: "I take 'Supplement X' because animal models showed it increased Testosterone by 'n amount' when taken at 1000mg/kg - it must work!"
Why do you think I brought up the issue with the Inuit? Why do you think that the fat has high levels of these pesticides in the first place? It shows that fat stores these types of lipophilic pesticides. If you don't think this happens in humans as well, well good for you I guess.
Your view is still at odds with how these tolerances are set, what the health implications of these tolerances are, and how your body metabolizes these environmental contaminants. Yes, the compounds build-up, but to what end? No matter how you re-word and re-hash the same argument, this is what your argument boils down to. The fact is I am well aware of how and why fat stores these compounds, and never disputed that. It's nothing more than a diversion that you bring that up as a point of contention.
And you are also forgetting about the other source of pesticides which you can not simply wash off. That is what is inside the food itself since plants update these chemicals from the soil they're grown in
Nope, not forgetting this either. Your organic foods still contain PCBs and the like, as does your air, your water and so forth. However, as I have said a few times now: even if your blood contamination levels were 10x
above average, they would still be innumerably below FDA tolerances - tolerances that are themselves innumerably below dangerous levels. You continuing to dispute this intuitive and simple point is tedious!
FDA maximums are limits they set figured out by fairly short term studies. They kill off animals by giving them big doses, and extrapolate to humans. That is my whole point and I don't see any reason to keep repeating that
We are making the same point, which is the portion you do not understand. That and what makes these studies effective or ineffective in their relevancy to humans. Mostly, that the
acute dosages achieved in the laboratory setting are
nearly impossible to come into contact with via daily activities. As well, you need to understand how these contaminants operate: a contaminant, say, PCB, usually must reach a certain level of PPM before it can exert tangible health consequences - i.e., long-term, low-level exposure is of negligible consequence.
Back to the supplement example: constantly exposing yourself to Tribulus Terrestris will
never increase your Testosterone, despite it evidencing a proandrogenic effect in vitro, and animal model in vivo. Why? Because blood levels will never reach the mg/kg equivalency that established its proandrogenic effect in the first place, because it is practically impossible to come into contact with these levels of the compound. You seem to ignore this basic tenet of physiology and study design.
There are no long term studies over a human's life time of these chemicals, period.
This is highly misleading as well. Both the FDA and Health Canada have conducted blood contaminant and concurrent medical history exams and found negligible health consequences to long-term, low-level exposure of environmental contaminants. (For reference, the average PCB amount in a Canadian or American's daily intake is less than 1/2 mcg. The acute exposure level found to cause transient effects in animals is in the
mg/kg range. 1mcg = 0.001 mg.) The only human studies on long-term exposure were conducted in workplace settings, which reflect chronic, high-level exposure; even then, dozens of studies have had inconclusive results at best. Most health professionals, health organizations, and governmental bodies have a consensus that low-level, long-term exposure to PCBs is not dangerous, even over a life-time. Proof positive against this would be exponentially higher Lymphoma/reproductive cancer rates correlating with higher PCB amounts in the patients. And, while blood contaminant data is performed on cancer patients in certain areas, this link has never been made. (Except in chronic, high-level, workplace exposures.)
If there is a way to try and reduce my exposure these chemicals then I will try my best to do it.
Unless you cease breathing and touching your environment, there is no way. The
only reason the FDA sets a tolerance to begin with is if the contaminant is deemed "environmentally unavoidable". Which means you could consume organic for the rest of your life and barely limit your exposure.
I'm not saying organic food is perfect but you should accept that some people don't want to be exposed to chemicals if they can avoid it. I don't see what the big deal about that is.
I could care less how you exercise your liberty. However, I will exercise mine when I see somebody saying, more or less, bull****. You continuing to say anything regarding the health consequences of organic food is disingenuous. Your original argument was that you avoid conventional foods where possible due to health consequences. But, you have not provided anything to show:
a) That synthetic pesticides are encountered and/or ingested in dosages, through conventional food, that mirror lab settings; and/or that these levels would cause even transient health consequences.
b) That organic foods avoid these same scenarios.
This is all becoming a bit repetitive, so I will leave you to your organic foods. The best you can hope for is to outlive me, and prove yourself right!
