Aripa dreapta americana adora sa urasca guvernul mare, dar marimea conteaza? Poate ca problema nu este guvernul mare, ci guvernul prost, guvernul insuficient sau chiar guvernul corupt, soldat sau inept. Recent Consumers Reunion Union, editorul Consumer Reports , a aruncat – faptul ca orezul contine niveluri periculoase de arsenic – ilustreaza cat de bun si eficient guvernul poate salva vieti, pastrand toxinele mortale din aprovizionarea cu alimente, in timp ce birocratia noastra federala (ajutata, abilitata si ingrijita de industria) ne-a abandonat.
Arsenicul „este considerat substanta chimica numarul unu de ingrijorare pentru efectele asupra sanatatii umane, atat in SUA, cat si in intreaga lume”, conform informatiilor publicate de programul de cercetare a suprafundelor de metale toxice Darmouth. Poate fi impartit in doua categorii: organic si anorganic. In timp ce arsenicul organic este el insusi un cancerigen uman probabil, arsenul anorganic este un cancerigen uman definit, care este legat de cancer de ficat, plamani, rinichi, vezica si piele, precum si „risc crescut de boli vasculare si cardiace, diabet de tip 2, reproductiv si tulburari de dezvoltare, greutati scazute la nastere la bebelusi, probleme neurologice si cognitive, imunodeficiente, tulburari metabolice si o lista in crestere a altor rezultate grave. “
Pe scurt: nu vrei asta in mancarea ta.
„Cand vorbesti despre un cancerigen [ca arsenic], nu exista un nivel sigur”, explica omul de stiinta principal al Uniunii Consumatorilor, Michael Hansen. In loc sa elimini tot riscul, ne uitam la cancerigeni in ceea ce priveste nivelurile de risc. De exemplu, Uniunea Consumatorilor ofera un tabel care explica cat de mult orez se poate manca pentru a atinge un risc de 1 la 1.000 de vieti de cancer. Guvernul federal nu limiteaza cantitatea de arsenic permisa in alimente, astfel incat Uniunea Consumatorilor si-a bazat standardul pe recomandarea initiala a APE pentru limitele de arsen in apa potabila (cinci parti pe miliard).
De fapt, standardul de apa potabila – care acum este stabilit la 10 parti pe miliard (ppb) – este un loc bun pentru a incepe povestea modului in care guvernul, industria si arsenicul se potrivesc. Arsenicul este un element care apare in mod natural, dar SUA a crescut cantitatea de arsen in mediul nostru si in terenurile noastre agricole in secolul trecut, folosind 1,6 milioane de tone din acesta in scopuri agricole si industriale. Aproximativ jumatate din aceasta suma a fost folosita de la mijlocul anilor ’60.
Odata ajuns in mediul inconjurator, arsenul – un element chimic si un metal greu – nu se descompune si nu dispareste la fel ca unele toxine. Odata ce atat de mult arsenic a fost pulverizat in ferme, a fost in mediu pentru bine – si-si poate gasi drumul in alimente si apa. Limitele americane pentru arsenic in apa de baut au fost stabilite la 50 ppb in 1942, inainte ca arsenicul sa fie clasificat ca cancerigen. Dar un raport din 1999 al Academiei Nationale de Stiinte a aratat ca acest nivel nu a reusit sa-i protejeze pe americani de un risc inacceptabil de mare de cancer.
EPA a propus apoi reducerea limitei pentru arsenic de la 50 ppb la doar 5 ppb in 2000. Industria s-a plans si EPA din epoca Clinton s-a solutionat dupa reducerea limitei la doar 10 ppb. Odata ce George W. Bush a preluat functia, a incercat initial sa blocheze schimbarea, pastrand astfel limita din epoca celui de-al doilea razboi mondial de 50 ppb. Pana in noiembrie 2001, administratia Bush a renuntat la a permite depasirea limitei de 10 ppb. Chiar si inca, senatorul Barbara Boxer a mentionat ca aceasta limita de 10 ppb ar permite de trei ori mai mult riscul de cancer decat obiectivul obisnuit al EPA.
Arsenicul din alimente merita o preocupare speciala si totusi nu exista reglementari care sa o limiteze. Pe langa arsenicul folosit in industrie care isi gaseste drumul catre ferme, exista arsenicul folosit in agricultura pe care fermierii insisi il aduc la fermele lor, o practica care dateaza aproape de razboiul civil.
Cu mult inainte de zilele DDT, primele pesticide sintetice au fost arsenicale. Un pigment de vopsea arsenica numit verde Paris a fost folosit pentru prima data impotriva gandacilor de cartofi din Colorado in 1867. Chiar si atunci, toxicitatea mortala a arsenicului era bine cunoscuta – Will Allen povesteste in cartea sa, The War on Bugs , cum fermierii au pierdut vitele dupa ce au mancat plante de cartof tratate cu Verde de Paris. Alte pesticide de arsen, arsenul londonez si arsenul de plumb au urmat in curand Parisul verde pe piata. In anii 1930, „peste peste o suta de milioane de oameni din Statele Unite au suferit de arsenic usor pana la sever si otravire cu plumb”, scrie Allen.
Cu toate acestea, sfarsitul arsenicului ca pesticid favorizat nu a venit de la guvernare – a venit din natura si de la companiile chimice. Pe masura ce daunatorii au evoluat rezistenta la pesticidele arsenicale, iar companiile chimice au inlocuit arsenicalele cu produse mai noi, arsenicalele au cazut in favoarea. Abia atunci guvernul a inceput sa anuleze unele dintre inregistrarile pesticidelor arsenice.
Si totusi, chiar si dupa ce arsenicalele au fost stramutate de alte pesticide pentru cele mai multe utilizari, jumatate din arsenul folosit in SUA a fost in ultima jumatate de secol. Utilizarile recente ale arsenicului se incadreaza in doua categorii: medicamente pentru animale si pesticide.
Pana de curand, drogurile de arsenicale pentru animale pentru animale, roxarsona, nitarsona, carbarsona si acidul arsanilic erau toate folosite la pui, curci si suine. Roxarsone a fost utilizat pe scara larga pentru prevenirea bolilor, cresterea in greutate, eficienta hranei si o pigmentare imbunatatita la pui din 1944 pana cand a fost eliminat voluntar de pe piata de catre Pfizer in 2011, dupa dezvaluirea ca puii hraniti cu roxarsone aveau arsenic anorganic in ficat. Ultimele trei sunt inca legale, reglementate de Food and Drug Administration.
Odata folosit la pui, arsenul din roxarsone a ramas in asternutul puiilor, care consta in asternut, excremente, pene si hrana scazuta. Pamantul de gunoi, la randul sau, a servit ca ingrasamant la ferme si – credeti sau nu – hrana pentru bovine. Si, dupa cum se dovedeste, statul de top producator de orez din SUA, Arkansas, se afla pe locul doi in spatele Georgiei pentru productia de broiler. (Dintre cele sase state producatoare de orez, toate se claseaza printre cei mai buni producatori de broiler ai natiunii, cu Mississippi si Texas printre primii cinci, iar California si Missouri printre primii 10.)
Ca pesticide, multe arsenicale au fost eliminate treptat de-a lungul anilor, dar au ramas unele utilizari. In 2006, APE a incercat in mod esential sa interzica utilizarea ramasa a arsenicalelor organice, deoarece “in urma aplicarii, aceste pesticide se transforma in timp intr-o forma mai toxica in sol, arsenic anorganic si pot contamina apa potabila prin scurgerea solului.” In urma crizei din industrie, EPA s-a indepartat de decizia initiala.
Toate arsenicalele organice, cu exceptia unui erbicid, metanearsonatul de monosodiu (MSMA), au fost interzise incepand cu 2009. Dupa aceea, MSMA a mai putut fi utilizata pe ferme de soda, terenuri de golf si drepturi de autostrada pana la sfarsitul anului 2013. Dupa aceea, doar unul ramanand din orice arsenical organic ar fi permis: MSMA pe bumbac.
As luck would have it, the six rice-growing states are among the top cotton-growing states: Texas, Mississippi and Arkansas top the list, with California, Louisiana and Missouri each growing significant cotton acreage as well. Rice is so susceptible to taking up arsenic because it is often grown in fields flooded with water. In fact, a 2008 study found that growers can reduce the amount of total and inorganic arsenic in rice by growing it under “aerobic” (not flooded) conditions. And yet the same states that grow rice are also the cotton-growing states where MSMA is still used.
So why does the EPA still allow MSMA on cotton if arsenicals are so bad that they are banned on absolutely everything else? Two words: Palmer amaranth. Despite years of warnings, biotech and chemical companies and cotton growers have created the perfect weed. Palmer amaranth has evolved resistance to both ALS inhibitor herbicides and to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, and one plant can produce half a million seeds.
Weeds commonly evolve resistance to ALS inhibitors, much more so than for any other class of herbicides. But resistance to glyphosate was almost unheard of before Monsanto first introduced its Roundup Ready genetically engineered crops to the market in 1996. Glyphosate use shot up, giving weeds the evolutionary force needed to develop resistance. Nowhere was this truer than on fields that rotated between two Roundup Ready crops, soybeans and cotton.
Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth first turned up in GE soybeans and cotton in Georgia in 2005 and before long it was documented across the U.S. including in the rice-growing states of Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, and California. In some case, resistance to both types of herbicides was found in the same Palmer amaranth plant. The weed has caused growers to turn to more toxic herbicides, hand-weeding, and even entirely abandoning their fields.
One last direct outlet for arsenic into agricultural lands comes from sewage sludge.
porno taboo http://doramasflv.net/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/
porno francez http://mypocketelections.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/
jocuri porno http://kohlbry.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/
porno cu animale http://schreinerei-wenig.daycoproducts.net/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/filme-porno/amatori
filme porno bucuresti http://carhack.org/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/filme-porno/anal
eleva porno exmatriculata http://virtualfactory.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/filme-porno/asiatice
filme porno frati http://global-haircare.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/filme-porno/beeg
porno movie hd http://racingforamerica.net/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/filme-porno/blonde
pozitii porno http://upsbigidea.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/filme-porno/brazzers
porno xxx romania http://addictedcosmetics.co.uk/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/filme-porno/brunete
porno batrini http://fischerfamilyfoundation.org/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/filme-porno/chaturbate
film porno alba ca zapada http://businesselite.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/bruneta-buna-este-linsa-in-pizda-si-penetrata-cu-degetele
paris hilton porno http://openjavame.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/femeile-mature-sug-pula-direct-de-pe-fata-lor
filme porno cu mama si fica http://tails2go.co/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/sora-suge-pula-si-dupa-o-calareste-pe-pat
krasznai tunde porno http://ecshawaii.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/curva-cu-experineta-face-sex-anal-intr-un-club-de-noapte
filme porno romanesti cu camera ascunsa http://umaianime.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/dadaca-fierbinte-are-grija-de-pula-tatalui
porno japanese http://remodelhomeguide.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/fetita-asiatica-isi-freaca-pizda-in-bucatarie
porno adulti http://cantariniranch.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/bruneta-cu-parul-cret-geme-cand-pula-intra-in-cur
gifuri porno http://frankkentcars.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/scolarita-asiatica-suge-pula-frtelui-si-a-tatalui
porno lezbience http://chockfullonuts.us/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=adult69.ro/studenta-se-fute-violenta-intr-o-camera-de-camin
Under current EPA regulations, sewage sludge containing 41 parts per million – 41,000 parts per billion – total arsenic can be applied to agricultural land and even sold to consumers for home garden and lawn use. (Full disclosure: I recently worked on the Center for Media & Democracy’s sewage sludge campaign, which opposed the use of sewage sludge in agriculture.) Under existing law, farmers can apply sewage sludge containing up to 41 kilograms of arsenic per hectare of land.
As you can see, between them, the USDA, FDA and EPA have allowed pesticides, pharmaceuticals and practices that led to the toxic load of arsenic Consumers Union found in rice. The EPA regulated pesticides, the FDA regulated drugs, and the USDA worked with farmers in many aspects of agriculture and gave the green light to Roundup Ready crops. It was no secret that arsenic was going into farms and fields where our food is grown, and yet the question of where the arsenic went was mostly ignored. The FDA recently released its own tests, confirming Consumers’ Union’s findings. As their data shows, even organic rice contains arsenic. (Organic farmers cannot use arsenical pesticides, but they can use manure from chickens fed roxarsone and other arsenical drugs.)
So is the government to blame for this massive oversight and public health risk? Michael Hansen doesn’t think so. “The issue in the larger context isn’t so much that it’s bad government,” he says. “If you put it in the proper context, it’s not only the gutting of the regulatory agency but also the control by industry and outside forces. I think there are definitely people within the agency who would like to take action on a number of things but they can’t because of the reaction by industry… The power of industry is so strong, you can’t expect the government to take action when they are trashed left and right.”
Consumers Union recently sent and published three letters, one to the EPA, one to the FDA and one to the USDA, asking them to rectify all of the problems named in this article so that no more arsenic finds its way into U.S. farms and so that standards are set for how much arsenic is allowed into our food supply. They also commend Congress for introducing the R.I.C.E. Act (Reducing Food-Based Inorganic and Organic Compounds Exposure Act) and they advocate its speedy passage (which is not likely in the current politically charged environment).
When citizens reflect on the size of their government, surely most would agree that it ought to be “big” enough to keep arsenic out of the food supply. But the comedy of errors between three different agencies that allowed so much arsenic onto our farms and then our dinner tables is exactly the sort of disaster that causes voters to throw up their hands and wish the government would go away altogether. Yet, if Hansen is correct, the incompetence shown in this case was not a matter of bureaucratic ineptness but one of industry’s capture over the agencies charged with regulating it. Voters going to the polls need to recognize the problem. Instead of voting for candidates who vow to get government out of our lives we should be voting for leaders willing to take a stand against undue corporate influence.
