Dichlorophene is a chemical commonly used as a pesticide because it’s toxic to many organisms, including bacteria and fungus. Dichlorophene is also toxic to humans. It irritates the skin, it’s very harmful to the eyes and mucous membranes, and if it’s eaten or inhaled, the results can be fatal.
Effects of Exposure to Dichlorophene
Dichlorophene is not safe in any way. The possible negative effects of exposure to dichlorophene are endless and largely depend on the method of exposure. Skin or eye contact can cause irritation. If it’s eaten or inhaled, depending on the amount, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, cramping, neurotoxicity, organ problems, and even death. [1] Dichlorophene is positive in the Ames mutagenicity test, meaning it has the potential to cause cancer. Despite this, dichlorophene has been added to cosmetics to kill bacteria and fungus. [2]
Dichlorophene is Toxic to the Brain
Dichlorophene is a developmental toxicant, meaning it can severely affect unborn children if mothers are exposed. Negative health effects can include low birth weight, defects, and psychological problems. These problems can be difficult to pinpoint, as negative effects may not immediately surface and only become apparent when the child is older.
Dichlorophene Exposure Completely Messes Up Your Body
Chemicals that are toxic to the endocrine system are known as “endocrine disrupting chemicals” and dichlorophene is one of them. The endocrine system regulates mood, metabolism, growth, development, reproduction, and sexual function; in other words, the serious bodily processes you do not want to be impacted by a toxic pesticide. Dichlorophene is especially toxic to the endocrine system because it mimics estrogen. [3] This can lead to horrible hormone imbalances in both men and women that can completely derail the body.
Dichlorophene and Obesity
Childhood obesity is a growing problem and chemical exposure might play a role. A study conducted by Mercer University School of Medicine in Macon Georgia looked at over 6700 subjects from the 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. After determining individual exposure to pesticides by measuring pesticide residue in the subjects’ urine, researchers noted that individuals with higher concentrations of dichlorophenol were also more likely to be obese. [4]
Preventing Exposure to Dichlorophene
You can control your own exposure to dichlorophene by using organic or natural pesticides, bactericides, and fungicides to safely remove pests instead of dangerous chemicals such as dichlorophene.
Unfortunately, dichlorophene also enters the environment through channels we cannot individually control. This re-enforces the need to drink water that has been purified and consume organic food that’s been grown in conditions free of toxic chemicals. Consuming toxins needs to be cut off at the source. Cleansing your life of the sources of toxins is the first step to cleansing your body.
Ring of Fire’s Sam Seder and Farron Cousins recently released documents that show Monsanto Executives were colluding with EPA officials to manipulate scientific data.
Transcript of the above video:
Sam: So, Farron, before we talk about the really blockbuster news from this week regarding Monsanto, let’s go back and talk about the history of the EPA and Monsanto’s Roundup, which of course is known as a glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in Roundup. Just give us some background so that people understand where we are as of this week with the release of these documents, what that means. But just give us some background on Roundup.
Farron: Well, basically, in 1985, Roundup had been on the market for several years. 1985 the EPA, after studying it for many, many years, decided they were going to classify it as a possible human carcinogen. And then after six years, six years ago they had said, “Yeah, okay, possible human carcinogen.”
In 1991, they decided to, I guess, take a second look at Monsanto’s request and for some reason looked at the exact same science, the exact same studies, that showed that there was a connection between exposure to glyphosate and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. They looked at the exact same science. Nothing had changed, and they said, “Okay, we’re going to take away this possible human carcinogen designation, and now you’re free to go, Mr. Monsanto.”
Here’s the kicker on this. That happened just about six months before GMOs produced by Monsanto hit the market. And those GMOs, people need to understand, were basically created so that Monsanto could sell the seeds that were resistant to Roundup, then sell Roundup by the barrel for them to go dump on all of the crops. The crops wouldn’t be hurt. It’s going to kill all the weeds. Less tillage, less work for you, if you buy our seeds and our poison. They have quite literally and figuratively at this point made a killing off of everything Roundup and Roundup-Ready related since that initial decision change in 1991.
Sam: Roundup-Ready is the term that we basically use when we’re talking about an agricultural product that is designed to be resistant to Roundup, as opposed to, I guess, theoretically the weeds around it. Now, so, every 15 years, federal law … And it’s at least 15 years … The longest period of time a pesticide or an herbicide can go without being reviewed again is 15 years, and they really pushed it to the limit, didn’t they? The EPA just started looking at it again, I guess, last year.
Farron: They did, and here’s the thing that’s happened since then. We have seen study after study. We’ve had the World Health Organization come out and designate this as a probable human carcinogen. The IARC Agency has come out basically said the same thing. Independent studies from universities, from independent scientists, they’re all coming to virtually the same conclusion, and that is that there is a higher instance of specific cancers like non-Hodgkins lymphoma along with a whole host of other diseases that are related directly, according to these studies, to exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup.
So, finally, the EPA once again came back and said, “Okay, I guess we’re a little past due on this issue, so we’re going to look at it again,” and that’s one of the reasons why Monsanto has once again found itself in the headlines. Not because the EPA is reviewing it, but because of what they’re trying to do with the EPA while they’re reviewing this particular herbicide.
Sam: Okay. So, last December, literally the last month of the last year that the government was required to review this product, and people have to understand that an extraordinary amount of our soy in this country, of our corn in this country … I don’t have the figures off the top of my head. You may know it, but it’s well over 70% of each of those are Roundup-Ready products. The corn, the soy. There’s others, but the amount of Roundup that is used in this country is extraordinary. But, nevertheless, the EPA takes the longest amount of time possible before they review, and then what do they do? They empanel an outside committee?
Farron: Yeah, and that’s one of the things that’s really frightening about what’s happening with the FDA as it currently stands is that they do rely a lot on outside committees. We bring in outside panels of experts, of scientists, and now more and more, and this is happening with Monsanto right now … They’re bringing in industry insiders. Allegedly chemical experts that all have ties back to the industry, and Monsanto has been doing everything possible to stack the deck. They’re trying to put their own people into these EPA advisory panels. People that they’ve paid. People that have been consultants for Monsanto, working on their own in-house studies. People that they’ve had rewrite studies in a more flattering light to show that glyphosate is not necessarily carcinogenic, or that the effects aren’t as bad as people think. These are the same people Monsanto is actively working with to get them placed into these EPA panels, or at the very least, from what we know, have them in that EPA panel’s ear telling them, “Well, look at this study. Look at our own studies that show that this thing is not harmful.”
They have a very captive audience there with the EPA right now, and especially with Scott Pruitt at the head of it who wants to replace scientists with industry insiders. Things are looking incredibly like they’re going to go in Monsanto’s favor, unfortunately, with what we have in this country right now.
Sam: All right. And so we should say I think there were 15 experts on this panel, and eight of them early on really expressed a concern about the EPA’s view of glyphosate as being so benign. I guess EPA came out with a report on the peer review, which was about a month or two ago. Maybe in March. Basically, where are we at with that?
Farron: Right now with that peer reviewed paper, the results of that are kind of in question because what we’re finding out at the moment is that Monsanto has been actively working, and I guess for lack of a better word, colluding with the EPA to downplay the negative health effects of glyphosate. Recently, in fact, this past week on Tuesday morning, a massive document dump took place as a result of the ongoing litigation against Monsanto where 75 different documents came out, released to the public, showing the different communications between Monsanto employees and scientists. Some of them with people who had connections at the EPA, connections to scientists, showing that they were working to downplay studies. You had employees of Monsanto in some of these communications telling their superiors, “I’m not comfortable with this. I’m not comfortable with downplaying these results or bastardizing this particular science.”
So, right now with what is happening at the EPA, I hate to sound like such a skeptic at this point, but we can’t necessarily trust it because Monsanto’s own documents show they have been infiltrating, I guess, and influencing them for several years at this point. This is not something that’s unique to the Trump administration. This is something that’s been going on for a very long time.
Sam: All right, Farron, we’re going to take a quick break. When we come back, I want to hear more about this because these documents that have been released … They’re unprecedented, the release of these documents. And like you said, they show what is know as regulatory capture and the implications of it are that literally hundreds if not thousands of people may have contracted some form of cancer because of the EPA has basically been partners in hiding information that Monsanto may have known the damages that Roundup could cause.
We’ve got to take a quick break. We’ll be right back with more. I’m Sam Seder. This is Ring of Fire Radio.
The Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) issued its first-ever marijuana recall after samples of Blue Magoo marijuana were found to contain a level of pesticide residue that exceeds the state’s limit. The cannabis brand is sold at a Mapleton, Oregon, store. [1]
Source: Oregon Cannabis Connection
The OLCC, which oversees retail sales of recreational marijuana, said samples of Blue Magoo failed a test for pyrethrin levels. Pyrethrin is a mixture of six chemicals that are extracted from the Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium plant. It’s considered a “natural” insecticide (and is sometimes used on organic products), but it’s far from safe. It’s toxic to mammals, especially cats, as well as fish and insects. It is also toxic to bees. [1], [2]
A factor in the recall is that marijuana growers must comply with an unfamiliar regulatory system that they haven’t faced before. Since marijuana is still illegal under federal law, the government has not established allowable tolerances of pesticides in pot, leaving states to figure it out for themselves. Oregon tests pot for 59 active ingredients. [1]
The recalled weed was grown by Emerald Wave Estate in Creswell, Oregon, and sold at Buds 4 U in Mapleton. People who purchased the marijuana should dispose of it or return it to the store, according to the OLCC.
OLCC spokesperson Mark Pettinger says Buds 4 U, which has fully complied with the recall, sold 82.5 grams of Blue Magoo to 31 customers from March 8 to March 10, 2017. When the store noticed the failed pesticide test in the state’s Cannabis Tracking System on March 10, it immediately contacted the OLCC.
Source: Twitter
Pettinger says:
“The retailer was great. They get the gold star.” [2]
Pettinger blames wholesaler Cascade Cannabis Distributing for the problem, saying it shipped the pot before pesticide test results were entered into the state’s tracking system. The rest of the company’s 9-lb. batch of Blue Magoo marijuana has been placed on administrative hold, meaning it can’t be lawfully sold unless additional pesticide testing gives it the all-clear. [1]
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
