Synergistic action of pesticides – Residues in food
The common population and unfortunately also many professionals in the sector do not fully understand the actions, interactions, synergies and residues of pesticides that arrive at the table and which, unknowingly, we introduce into our organism.
If you read the labels of these formulations do not mention the possible residues of pesticides in food, so this aspect is in itself rather irresponsible.
According to several studies (universities, research centers and other consumer protection organizations) a third of fruit and vegetables that ends up on the tables of Italians shows traces of pesticides. These studies then report that some samples present at the same time more active ingredients up to 6, 7 and even 9 pesticide molecules.
These analyzes (for correct information and possible feedback) were carried out on fruit and vegetable samples and derivatives and analyzed by the Italian public laboratories of the Regional Environmental Protection Agencies (ARPA).
Specifically, the residues found were Captano, Clorphyrifos, Boscalid, Fosmet, Dimetoato, Diazinone.
All active ingredients whose individual formulas almost never speak of the (enormous) dangers of active residues on foods and the synergistic actions of the various molecules.
It is worth mentioning that among the most dangerous of these active ingredients is the Clorphyrifos, a molecule now used for almost 50 years and which is recognized by several scientific studies as an endocrine disruptor, because it alters the functioning of the endocrine system causing damage to organism, compromising the normal functioning of the hormonal system which, as is known, is fundamental for growth (therefore at greater risk there are children) and survival. The Clorphyrifos and its metabolites, in addition to acting as endocrine disruptors, have a strong neurotoxic activity, with potential long-term effects on neuro-endocrine regulation and psychosocial development (for this to deepen the psychosocial theory of the development of Erikson). As if to say that some social aspects of our society belong to such delicate and complex issues as to escape even the analysis of sociologists and even more so of economists, etc.
Also for correct information it must be said that the current legislation has certainly led to greater control of active substances used in the production of formulations; moreover, the European harmonization of maximum permitted residue limits (MRLs) in food, which took place in 2008, was certainly an important step forward. What is missing is a standard that clarifies the sector and therefore a specific regulation that regulates and defines the simultaneous use of several active ingredients in the production of formulations, as well as the traceability of more residues in a single food product.
The legislation, at least for the moment, is not expressed with respect to the so-called multi residue ie, the amount of residues that can be found in food and the definition of the limits the maximum residual (MRL) is based only on individual residues. From a scientific point of view it is a lack and an inexplicable gap, also because in phytoiatrics it is a well-known question.
For this reason, the legislator should be urged not to worry only about the limits of these molecules in food (limits often very controversial and with low verification – if not nothing – scientific) but to draw up a guide where they are made known (and then prosecuted) the effects synergists that may result from the simultaneous use of multiple pesticides.
Obviously these are not trivial things; here there is not only the physical health of our present and future society but above all the psychic and behavioral one. We must absolutely denounce and understand the risks to which children are exposed first of all, but also adults because of the ever-increasing presence of multi-residual products, ie food products containing more than one pesticide residue. We can not take away our children’s rights because of the ignorance of their parents (be they politicians, scientists or ordinary people); this is not acceptable in a civil society.
In fact, even if in small doses and under the limits established by law, the synergistic action of various substances taken from the environment may have (and this is no longer a mystery) a carcinogenic effect.
For this reason it is not the case even to do a battle in favor of the biological (because from some it could be read and exploited as interest of some parts). Here we have to review the entire production plant of farms and today science, technology and new knowledge tell us that producing well and naturally is not only possible: it is a moral as well as a social obligation.
On the horizon, however, encouraging signs: attention to these issues is growing and this means that to regain sovereignty over their own future, citizens must know, discriminate and confront each other.
Freedom is acquired only in this way.