What are the Dangers of Pesticides in Fields for Humans?

Based on materials about bird poisoning with agricultural pesticides, I received comments.

And now, based on comments from my readers, I want to immediately discuss the topic of agricultural poisoning in more detail.

I want to draw readers' attention to the fact that although I am talking about the poisoning of birds and various other animals, this is primarily a topic about SELF-POISONING.

All poisons partially end up in the food products we buy and eat daily. And no matter how much they talk about the 'permissible maximum concentrations' of poisons, the truth is that most poisons do not and cannot have 'permissible concentrations'! The presence of poisons is simply unacceptable, period!

And while the direct toxic effect of high concentrations of poisons on humans is known, much less is known about the effects of these so-called 'permissible concentrations' of poisons. Such studies, which reveal the initial falsehood in the very concept of 'permissible concentration' of a poison, are not welcomed by officials. And they are even less welcomed by the owners of international corporations that monopolize the food market.

Here is a fresh example of research on the impact of 'permissible,' according to officials, concentrations of agricultural poisons on people from Brazil. A scientific group found that the expansion of soy production increased the incidence of leukemia in children in Brazil...

...however, access to medical care mitigated this effect.

I was really 'hooked' by this formulation of the research conclusions:

— the expansion of soy production is directly related to the increase in childhood leukemia, which is actually stated;

— but at the same time, the scientists seem to immediately apologize to the agricultural corporations and officials: well, it’s kind of okay, not scary! This is offset by improved medical care!

It looks quite dubious: corporations profit from poisons for agriculture, and then also from treating poisoned children. And all this is covered and facilitated by government officials through the legalization of poison use via the system of legal permissible maximum concentrations (PMC), while simultaneously profiting a second time through the healthcare system.

This doesn't look good at all...

Wouldn't it be better not to poison people in the first place?!

It is clear that from the perspective of an individual and for the benefit of society as a whole, it is definitely better to avoid using poisons in the first place and not to poison anyone!

However, from the perspective of generating income for international monopolies and the government officials serving their interests, this is an unacceptable option that immediately destroys both sources of super-profits for monopolies: from 'big chemistry' in agriculture and then from 'big pharmacology' in treating poisoned people.

For reference, in case anyone is still unaware:

The same international companies (transnational corporations — TNCs) typically are the producers of both poisonous chemicals for agriculture and pharmaceutical products. These same corporations also produced these poisons as chemical weapons for the military! The most prominent example of such 'public-private partnership' is the Vietnam War and the involvement of TNCs in it.

So, the Brazilian example illustrating the impact of agricultural poisons.

The scientific work is titled: Agricultural Intensification and Childhood Cancer in Brazil.

It was published recently, on October 30, 2023.

This is a joint work of a large team of authors. The data were edited and double-checked by professors from Cornell University in New York.

The essence is simple: American scientists analyzed the oncology incidence in children in Brazil and found that after the expansion of local soy production, there was a statistically significant increase in the incidence of leukemia among children. According to the study, the cause of this connection is likely to be pesticides entering the water supply system. Simply put, poisons are washed off the fields and end up in groundwater.

The general information is as follows:

Currently, Brazil is the world's leading consumer of highly hazardous pesticides and the second-largest consumer of all pesticides.

Brazil uses pesticides at a rate 2.3 times higher per hectare than the United States... and 3 times higher than China.

The use of pesticides for soybean cultivation in Brazil sharply increased after the approval of genetically engineered soybean varieties resistant to glyphosate in 2004.

Scientists calculated that a ten percentage point increase in soy-planted areas increases a child's probability of dying from acute lymphoblastic leukemia by 1.3 percent before the age of five;

...and a child's probability of dying before the age of ten by 1.6 percent.

And this is considering that access to qualified medical care reduced the effect of pesticide contamination of soil and water, and this is accounted for in the statistics of the study!

Is this a lot or a little?

Judge for yourself, considering the following facts:

15-year data were used to study childhood cancer mortality during the period of soy cultivation expansion and pesticide use in the Cerrado and Amazon biomes in Brazil.

The soybean-planted areas in the Cerrado increased from 5 million hectares in 2000 to 15 million hectares in 2019.

That’s three times or 300 percentage points!

In the Amazon basin, the increase was twentyfold or 2,000 percentage points!

The soybean area there increased from 0.25 million hectares to 5 million hectares.

An especially interesting fact also mentioned in the study:

The expansion of soy production in Brazil over the 15 years covered by the study happened at the expense of converting pastures, not deforesting native forests!

Such conversion of pastures into soybean fields is actively promoted by government officials in Brazil as a 'necessary form of agricultural intensification.'

And this is despite the fact that cattle farming uses relatively few resources. And pesticides are virtually not used at all! While soy production requires:

- high resource consumption overall;

- high doses of pesticides, for which the PMCs were recently increased legislatively;

- over 15 years of such changes in agricultural structure (from pasture-based cattle farming to soy cultivation), a statistically significant increase in cancer among THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE REGIONS has been identified.

Quite an interesting fact in the context of 'combating cattle farming as a source of CO2', isn't it?

Perhaps it’s simpler: international monopolists are just striving for even greater monopolization of the food market and trying to eliminate cattle farming? And they are attempting to make all agricultural producers dependent on growing soybeans that they control?!

Once again, I will quote the study on the use of pesticides in Brazil:

'We (in the study) provide data regarding the population not directly involved in agricultural production. Our work highlights that the exposure to hazardous chemicals, previously identified among non-agricultural populations, is indeed associated with adverse health outcomes among broader population layers.'

Moreover,

OUR RESULTS ARE JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG, because our results do not consider the non-fatal health consequences of pesticide exposure on the environment, including ALL cases of successful treatments, other forms of cancer, and non-cancerous diseases resulting from pesticide exposure.

THUS, THIS RESEARCH REFLECTS ONLY A SMALL PART OF A MUCH LARGER PHENOMENON RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.

'Agricultural intensification is considered to have particular potential in developing countries characterized by low-cost agriculture. However, policy-makers should assess the potential impact of agricultural intensification on community development and health outcomes. One of the main issues is that agricultural intensification often includes the use of pesticides — chemicals that destroy pests or weeds — with known adverse effects on human health.

Policy-makers and stakeholders may underestimate the costs of intensification for their communities.'

The Brazilian study links the lobbying for soy production in the country over the past 15 years with the rise in childhood cancer.

In my recent materials, I talked about poisons for rodents, but the essence remains the same!

Animal and bird deaths are just indicators by which we can see the presence of high doses of poisons. These same poisons then enter natural ecosystems. They are washed into groundwater and come to us.

Just as 'permissible concentrations' of poisons supposedly enter us directly through food products.

And even if we 'don't care about some birds, and the production of products and agriculture in the regions is more important,' as a few people mentioned in the comments — poisoning ourselves is an extreme foolishness!

I repeat: the death of birds is just an indicator of the danger for ourselves! We poison natural ecosystems — we ultimately poison ourselves!

© PAVEL PASHKOV