To determine the presence of toxins in the body, there are a variety of methods: blood analysis using whole blood, morality therapy, kinesiology, etc.
The analysis of hair is another one that is better known to forensic scientists because it can detect traces of possible poisoning. However, you don't have to be dead to do this type of analysis. This expertise of hair of a living person allows to evaluate its rate of "poisoning" with regard to toxic substances, substances that we are in contact with every day.
At the beginning of 2014 and for the first time in France, an association "Générations Futures" had locks of hair from 30 schoolchildren aged 3 to 10 living or going to school in agricultural areas analyzed by an independent laboratory. The samples, taken by the parents, were taken between October and December 2013 and the analyses performed in early 2014. The research included 53 pesticides suspected of being endocrine disruptors (EDs). This allowed for an accurate assessment of the level of impregnation of certain pesticides and other plant protection products in these children.
The summary of the results shows that there is plenty of reason to panic
- An average of 21.52 different pesticide residues (EPs) per child.
- -The trace of 35 PE pesticides out of 53 appeared at least once among the children in the group, a frequency of 66.03%.
- 13 out of 53 substances in all samples. Among these 13 toxins, there are many products that have been banned for agricultural use in France for years and others that are authorized for domestic or veterinary use.
The spokesman for "Générations Futures", François Veillerette states, "The presence of more than 21 pesticide PE substances on average in the hair analyzed shows that in reality our children are exposed to significant cocktails of these substances."
Some experts say that these traces of pesticides do not necessarily mean a health hazard because they are present in infinitesimal doses.
But as François Veillerette retorts in a very sensible way to this somewhat light argument from the scientific point of view:
"It is not so much the dose that is the problem, but the accumulation of pesticides and the cocktail effect.
Even if the association recognizes that these results and this sample of children cannot be considered as representative of the average exposure of all the French children, it considers that there is nevertheless an urgency as for the fact of protecting the sensitive and at risk populations.
No one knows the physical or physiological consequences that the accumulation of infinitesimal doses over the years and the recombination of these thousands of different molecules can have in the long term.
It is not so much the banning of daytime spraying to protect... bees or the reduction of the occasional domestic use of insecticide bombs and pest control products that the authorities are pointing to that should be recommended, but much more drastic measures on a large scale.
So quickly if our governments and commissions really cared about the health of the population.
But given the financial stakes and the enormous power of the lobbies, do you really think that such laws can be voted and implemented?