DAFF and APVMA refuse to test Australian pesticides to see if they contain PFAS contaminants (even after US products were proven to in 2022). They prefer to wait until they can measure enough forever chemicals in the produce and people to definitely, certainly, cause more endocrine disruption and cancer. Seriously, this is their logic. Any notion of preventative health action around PFAS is dismissed in Australia, as if it is hysterical, or just inconvenient to implement. Just as we lead world in cancer- we all know someone with breast, prostate and skin cancer. We all know someone who suffered from infertility- as it is now 1 in 6 that need reproductive intervention to have kids. It used to be almost no-one needed such pharmacological intervention. Our fertility is declining. Our Government is not protecting its people.
"According to the researchers, current monitoring of #PFAS in groundwater is limited, and fails to consider pesticides as a source of PFAS." https://lnkd.in/gpYCJvKk
We can and test products for PFAS. If is present in a wide range of commercial products, industrial chrmicals and pharmaceutical. Typically not appearing on labels or MSDs as there concentration can be less than 1% or 10,000ppm
Where’s the angry 😡 button!
Businessman with a Clear, Decisive Vision to Address Risk Factors in a Population. PROFITABILITY + SUSTAINABILITY + SWORDS OF JUSTICE 不忘初心,守住本心,大步向前迈进,必胜。
6moI would look into the drinking water for evaluation of risk factors. Human body comprised 70% water. An average adult consumes between 1.5 to 2L daily. The cumulative effects will show up in the blood as well. However, evaluation of risk factors is never simple or direct since it is known existing know-how is unable to know multivariate effects. Dose and response dun work either since trace levels will send any computer model south, unless someone is smart enough to perform data normalisation but even with this is place, it will never breach the threshold for any tangible effects hence the white elephant in the room. Start with water, what is practicable, then progress into the human diet. I wun bother looking for this chemical in pesticides. Pesticides r never the subject so shift away from pesticides. When it comes to risks assessment, it's the translation that matters. From the environment, into food, into supply chain, to the plate, in the humans. If u want to move the decision, begin with water. That is more impactful. Then again, I would expect solutions and that's easy to solve, fortunately. Not taking sides, just saying things as they r.