Les plus gros mensonges de l’industrie agro-alimentaire – Produits chimiques – Enquête – AT

Pesticides, additifs, colorants, emballages… Un sujet qui nous concerne tous et qui pose la question de notre alimentation.
👉 Les meilleurs documentaires ? Ils sont ICI 👉 https://bit.ly/2RDK6wZ 👈

Peut-on établir un lien entre la contamination de la chaîne alimentaire par des substances chimiques et l’épidémie de maladies chroniques que l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (OMS) constate un peu partout dans le monde ?

Notre poison quotidien est un documentaire d’investigation qui tente de répondre à cette question et dresse le bilan d’études longtemps ignorées : l’épidémie actuelle de cancers, maladies neurologiques et dysfonctionnements du système immunitaire, est en grande partie liée à l’exposition des quelques 100 000 molécules chimiques qui ont envahi notre alimentation et notre environnement.

Une enquête qui met en évidence la réalité de ces effets, mais également l’opacité et le mensonge de l’industrie agro-alimentaire et des décideurs politiques.

Notre poison quotidien
Réalisateur : Marie-Monique Robin
Producteurs : ARTE FRANCE, INSTITUT NATIONAL DE L’AUDIOVISUEL
©ARTE

Well, Nicolas, isn’t your appetite okay? No no. How do you want it to go? I just read that we are going to add yet another chemical, perhaps, to bread: monostearate. And why do ? To prevent it from hardening. As if that wasn’t enough… wine with colorings,

Apples covered in insecticides, meat from animals fattened with antibiotics, salad with chemical fertilizers… But, that’s no longer possible ! Yes, the list of chemicals added to food is increasing every day. But should we really believe everything we say about the danger of these chemicals?

You know, the subject is serious enough for our future, not only ours but that of children, the diet of the year 2000 is still important enough for the future of the species for us to carry out an investigation, We need

To go and see all the specialists, all those who deal with toxicology and food to enlighten us on this subject. I was four years old when this footage was filmed and I could have been one of the children sitting around the table.

Half a century later, I resumed the investigation which had ended short. And for good reason: at the time it was too early to measure the long-term effects of chemicals used in the food chain, from the farmer’s field to the consumer’s plate.

Yet they are everywhere: on fruits and vegetables, in the form of pesticide residues, in groceries and prepared meals, in the form of food additives. Or even in plastic packaging and containers. How are they regulated? Have they been seriously tested? Is there a link between these chemicals and certain

Chronic diseases, such as cancer, neurodegenerative diseases or infertility problems ? To answer these questions, I traveled around the world, patiently putting the pieces of the puzzle together, because knowledge is power. Listen, I am very happy to welcome you to this farm called Beauregard.

It is a cereal farm, there is no livestock; here, in the early 90s, it was intensive agriculture and I strongly believed in chemistry. It is also here that I had an accident in April 2004 where quite simply, while checking the cleaning of a tank on a sprayer having just weeded corn, there was

A fairly powerful weedkiller inside, Lasso. , and I inhaled the vapors of an adjuvant, a solvent called monochlorobenzene, which was in this product. On corn and soybeans, Lasso or any derived product can control weeds. Lasso, Monsanto’s herbicide.

As soon as the accident happened I was taken care of by an emergency service and then I was arrested for a few weeks. But it was mainly health problems that appeared several months later, which led to 5 months of hospitalization and 9 months of sick leave. I realize that today, if you

Are here, it is because several of us are victims of these products… It is a taboo subject, I know that it is very very difficult to talk about it… Ma solution: herbicides. Used properly, they harm no one. Except for weeds . It was a world first. In January

2010, around thirty sick farmers gathered at the invitation of the Movement for Respect and the Rights of Future Generations, an environmental organization, which is leading a campaign on the dangers of pesticides. At the start of my career – it’s symbolic – I tore down hedges. And today

We are replanting hedges. I was there in two capacities: as a journalist, first, because the food chain begins in the farmer’s field; but also because I grew up on a farm, located a hundred kilometers away. Like all these men and women, my parents were actors in the green revolution which

Profoundly changed agricultural practices in the years following the Second World War. The model came from the United States, which, thanks to the Marshall Plan, supposed to support the reconstruction of Europe in ruins, massively exported agricultural machinery and pesticides. And everyone believed in it: no more shortages or famines, industrial agriculture would

Be able to feed the world. Over the last twenty years, man has succeeded in putting chemistry at the service of abundance. This abundance gives us the best living conditions ever known. In this agricultural model, chemistry has the answer to everything…. It provides insecticides to destroy insects, herbicides to destroy

Weeds… And fungicides to exterminate fungi… Why a meeting today? We have been working on chemical pollution for 15 years, particularly on pollution linked to pesticides, and for 15 years we have seen farmers everywhere in the countryside in France who are sick or who tell us that they have sick colleagues.

The goal is for you to be able to express yourself and then also find a certain number of answers to questions that you ask yourself either in terms of toxicology, in medical terms or in legal terms since we have a certain number of experts who are there who

Can give you answers. My story is banal, it’s acute intoxication. So I was lucky, maybe I was tougher, I don’t know, but I was lucky to survive that day. Perhaps it is bad luck for the firm, in any case, which sold the product!

I had neurological problems, that is to say that I lost… I had violent headaches , I lost consciousness suddenly, I had comas which were not very long, of course, but deep. and sudden. Today, at the neurological level, I

Am monitored, I have an MRI every 6 months because lesions have appeared in the brain and therefore the evolution is monitored very closely. Never forget: Pesticides are poisons. It’s up to you to be careful. Use them with care. “Pesticides are poisons”. This

Has the merit of clarity. And in high doses, they can cause what is called “acute intoxication”, in English “poisoning”. This danger has never been denied by the promoters of chemical agriculture, who, fifty years ago , did not hesitate to film victims of acute poisoning, for the purposes of

Therapeutic research and prevention. According to the World Health Organization , each year, one to three million people suffer from acute pesticide poisoning and more than 200,000 die. France represents the leading European user of pesticides, with an annual consumption of 80,000 tonnes. Since 1997, the Mutualité Sociale Agricole – MSA – has been running

A monitoring program for acute poisoning, called “Phyt’Attitude”. “Phyt ” like “plant protection products”, the term used by public authorities and industry to designate pesticides. In 2009, the mutual received 271 reports of acute poisoning. Do you know what kind of products are incriminated: are they more herbicides? fungicides?

So we have an idea, well, we know for example when people have headaches: most often it’s insecticides. It’s decreasing because it was a category, a family of insecticide products and they tend to disappear but we have noticed more insecticides, with insecticides neurological symptoms, we say headaches. With fungicides, we observe more skin manifestations,

With herbicides it is more digestive, cutaneous. What diseases can be recognized as occupational diseases in an agricultural environment? So… we have to… the start was in the years 90-95, when American, Italian and Scandinavian studies showed that cancers were more frequent in the agricultural population

Than in the general population. It should be noted that in the agricultural population, there are fewer cancers than in the general population but that a certain number of cancers are more represented. And there, we also had diseases, I’m talking about cancers but also neurological diseases, notably with Parkinson’s disease and these diseases,

Which we saw in certain people, in certain farmers were recognized as occupational diseases since epidemiological studies showed that in fact there was an increase in the risk of these diseases linked to phyto products. If Dr. Dupupet’s response was so laborious, it is because until recently

, the long-term impact of pesticides on their users was a taboo subject. Prevention messages only targeted acute poisoning, but never chronic exposure to low doses repeated over time. The proliferation of epidemiological studies has forced the mutual to gradually break its silence. An example: Parkinson’s disease. To date, around ten epidemiological studies

Have established a link between chronic exposure to pesticides and this neurodegenerative pathology. I chose two: one was carried out by the National Institute of Health and Medical Research, in collaboration with MSA occupational physicians, and the other by the Parkinson Institute, in California. Each study involved a cohort of at

Least 500 patients, compared to an equivalent group of non-diseased people, called the “control group”. Our main result is that three chemicals are very strongly associated with the risk of having Parkinson’s disease. The first is 2-4 D, which is a herbicide, the second is Paraquat,

Another herbicide and the third is Permethrin which is an insecticide. Among the insecticides it was observed that there was a more particular relationship with organochlorine insecticides, for which the risk was a little higher than overall, with a risk approximately multiplied by 2.5.

The risk can be 2.5 to 3 times higher. These are products, so like DDT of course which has now been banned for a very long time, or lindane which was used until the end of the 90s, the most recently banned is endosulfan, these

Are products which have been banned, in most countries, at least Western ones, for their agricultural use due to their very persistent nature in the environment. To date, around thirty sick farmers have been recognized as having an occupational disease, including ten for Parkinson’s disease. For the patients gathered in Ruffec, this is not

Enough, because the MSA grants the status slowly. Nevertheless: the change in attitude of the mutual insurance company constitutes a world first. I think it is perhaps good now to give the floor to people who have already been recognized as having an occupational disease to show the cases where this has already resulted

? Is this your case? This is what happened to me. In 98 I inhaled Gaucho for a whole day. In the evening I was sick, the doctor came, I gave in and all that. He wrote me a paper saying I had inhaled Gaucho . And in 2002 I went to see a

Nuclear medicine neurologist in Tours and she told me: you have Parkinson’s disease. And she, frankly, told me like this: it could come from the pesticides that you inhaled. I have been off work for 7 years, I have been in Paris now for 18 months. For what ? Quite simply because in Paris

I live incognito, I am free, downright free. I would be in my campaign, people would do this to me, they would point the finger at me. I couldn’t live. And is it common in the industry where the victim is singled out by their

Own community? In a nutshell, I’ve seen in 6 years… Initially , my fellow farmers told me – excuse me the term: “Shut up, you’re disturbing. If you’re more sensitive than the others, it’s not our fault, because we’ve always used them and we’re not sick . And today, six years later,

I would say, not ten days go by without us getting phone calls from people. Either they are sick, or they are starting to think differently, and say: “You’re right, we have some responsibility for this pollution and for the environment, but the first victims will be us. » Well, I’m Yannick, I’m a farmer

In Saujon, Charente-Maritime. I fell ill in October 2002. I contracted acute myeloid leukemia type 4. Today… So in 2003 they gave me a bone marrow transplant, which worked well, at the University Hospital of Poitiers, and on the other hand today I still have the reaction of the graft against me… the person who

Gave me his bone marrow was not 100% compatible with me, and the transplant is reacting against my body. Today I have problems with my skin and tendons, tendon retraction and scleroderma of the skin, dry eyes and many other problems. Rather, which cancers are likely to be recognized as occupational diseases?

So, cancers: there are blood cancers, these are the ones that we find most often or that we find most often in epidemiological studies. Which is: leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma. We also find brain cancer, we also find prostate cancer, and also skin cancer.

What do pesticide manufacturers think? In France, they are represented by the Union of Plant Protection Industries which brings together 19 members, including the six giants of the sector, BASF, Bayer, Dow, Dupont, Monsanto and Syngenta. Today, there is no evidence to establish a certain correlation between the appearance

Of certain diseases and exposure to plant protection products…. Who to believe? On the one hand, the MSA which grants occupational disease status to farmers suffering from cancer; on the other, an industry representative, who asserts that the link between pesticides and cancer has not been demonstrated.

To see more clearly, I contacted the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO. In 2007, IARC co-signed a report published by the French academies of medicine and science. Entitled “the causes of cancer in France ”, it named tobacco as the main cause of the disease, and affirmed that only

0.5% of cancers are due to chemical pollution. In his table of cancers attributable to occupational exposures, he ignored pesticides. And concluded: “The putative link between pesticides and cancer is not based on any solid data.” In the field of cancer, the IARC is an international reference. It is he who

Establishes the “monographs”, that is to say the classification of chemical products according to their carcinogenic potential, a crucial tool for the regulation of substances. To do this, its experts examine the scientific literature concerning the product, namely all studies published in so-called peer-reviewed journals . The substances are classified into three categories:

Group 1, “carcinogenic to humans”. An exceptional category, because for a molecule to be part of it there must be epidemiological data, which is very difficult to obtain. This is the case for asbestos or benzene. Then come Group 2 A, “probable carcinogen for humans” and Group 2

B “possible carcinogen” which characterize substances for which there are more or less significant experimental data in animals. Of the 100,000 chemicals marketed since the end of the Second World War, only 900 have been evaluated by the IARC. More than half are part of Group 3 : “Unclassifiable”. Does the fact that a chemical

Has not been classified by the IARC mean that it is not dangerous? No not at all. This means that in most cases it has not been tested. Sometimes he has been tested but we have not yet scheduled his evaluation. Typically , this means that no one has reviewed its data for cancer or

No one has studied its potential carcinogenic effects. How many pesticides have been evaluated by IARC? I haven’t really counted them, but I think we must have evaluated about twenty or thirty pesticides in the entire history of our program. But it’s nothing! It’s true that it’s not much if

We compare with the number of pesticides that are used. In fact, it is very difficult for us to do a serious evaluation of pesticides because the majority of experimental studies concerning them are not public. Certainly, the companies that produce pesticides are supposed to provide data to

National health agencies and they carry out tests. The studies are sent to government agencies but they are not published. It’s very difficult for us to have access to it. How do you explain the fact that studies conducted by the pesticide industry are not published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

It may not be in companies’ interests to publish results that suggest their products may be harmful. In any case, they are not obliged to make their studies public. You know that in 2007 the French Academies of Medicine and Science published with the IARC a report entitled “the causes

Of cancer in France”. The authors write that “none of the pesticides currently used are carcinogenic in animals or humans.” I looked through your monographs and found at least two pesticides currently in use, classified as 2B, dichlorvos and chlorothalonil. If they were classified 2B, does that mean that

Studies have shown that they are carcinogenic at least in animals? Yes, they are still used and I’m sure they are carcinogenic to animals… Does that mean this report’s claim is inaccurate? Yes, I think she is. “In theory, there should never be any insecticides in the food we

Eat, but unfortunately this is not always the case. Often only traces remain , too weak to poison us quickly, but how can we know if in the long run these traces will not promote a more serious disorder. Cancer, for example.” All the right questions were already asked fifty years ago…

If pesticides are toxic to the point of making their users sick, what about the residues found on treated fruits and vegetables? Can they make us, the consumers, sick? To answer this question, you need to understand how chemical regulation works. The current system was developed at the end of the 1950s,

Under the leadership of the WHO in collaboration with the FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Digging through the archives, I discovered that a French toxicologist played a key role in establishing the tools intended to regulate the chemical substances that come into contact with our food: his

Name was René Truhaut and he had was interviewed by my colleagues fifty years ago . We can say that in the face of the growth of chemistry, we should somehow increase preventive weapons? If you allow me to make a comparison.

In the last century, when this citizen of the world that was Pasteur discovered the danger of bacteria, and in the food sector specifically, great importance was attached to the microbiological control of food and a whole series of laboratories were founded to carry out this control. Well it should be the same

In the context of the control of chemical agents added to food, because their dangers, to be more insidious, less spectacular, if you like, are in my opinion certainly no less. serious”. René Truhaut is considered the father of what is called “the acceptable daily intake”, or “acceptable” in the

Jargon “ADI”. First designed for the regulation of food additives, this capital tool of toxicology was then been extended to pesticide residues. Here is the definition given by René Truhaut: “The Admissible Daily Intake is the quantity of food additive that can be ingested daily, and for

A lifetime, without any risk”. Oddly enough, no one really knows how the ADI was invented, even though it is supposed to protect our health from chemical risks. The only person I found was Diane Benford, a toxicologist at the UK Food Standards Agency. She is the author

Of a document entitled “the acceptable daily intake, a tool to ensure food safety ”. It was published by ILSI, an organization which is financed by multinational chemical and agri-food companies. In her historical part, Diane Benford is content to name René Truhaut and to quote Paracelsus, a Swiss doctor of the 16th

Century, considered the founder of toxicology: “Everything can be poison: it is the dose that makes the difference between a poison and a cure “. The concept which constitutes the basis of the ADI is Paracelsus’ principle: “the dose makes the poison”. What does this mean exactly? This means that the likelihood of having

Toxic effects increases with dose. But fundamentally, it is true for everything, including water or oxygen, without which we cannot live: if we absorb too much of it, it can also be harmful. With most elements, the lower the dose, the lower the likelihood of having negative effects . Is this what toxicologists call

The “dose/effect relationship”? That’s it… Not only does the severity of the effect increase with dose, but so does the number of individuals who have a negative reaction. If I understand correctly the whole evaluation process starts from the principle that the chemicals are toxic and we try to find a

Dose which is supposed to produce no effect? Yes. As seen here, just one drop of insecticide can be fatal. Concretely, the Admissible Daily Intake is calculated from studies carried out on laboratory animals. First step, guinea pigs are exposed to a high dose of chemical, usually

Orally. The goal is to determine what we call the “lethal dose ” or, in the jargon the “DL 50”, that is to say the dose that kills half of the animals. Second step, we reduce the dose to observe the effects on the guinea pigs.

We look for a whole series of possible harmful effects. For example, we try to know if the product damages tissues or organs, if it causes effects on the nervous or immune system, and we are particularly interested in its carcinogenic potential, because of course it is something something that worries people.

The experiment is repeated until a dose is obtained which apparently causes no effect on the animals. This is what we call the “NOAEL”, i.e. the “no observed toxic effect dose”. Then, to calculate the ADI, which will serve as a reference for humans, we apply a safety factor by dividing the NOAEL by 100.

Finally, the ADI is a value expressed in mg of product per kilo of body weight. Take the example of a pesticide that has an ADI of 0.2 mg. If the consumer weighs 60 kg, he is therefore supposed to be able to ingest 60 x 0.2 mg, therefore 12 mg of pesticide per day,

And for his entire life, without his health being affected… Can we say that the dose without observed toxic effect is a safety threshold? In life there is no area where absolute security can be guaranteed. In fact, it depends on the quality of the studies conducted on animals. If the study is

Mediocre, we risk missing effects that could have been observed in a very good quality study. It is a fuzzy measurement, which is not extremely precise. This is why managers use an uncertainty factor. The standard approach used for years by toxicologists consists of applying

A factor of 100: we consider that it is first a factor of 10 to take into account the differences that may exist between animals and humans, then a new factor of 10 for differences in sensitivity between humans themselves. The question is whether it is enough. Many argue that a

Factor of 10 to account for human variability is far too low. For the same dose, the effect may be zero for some people, but it may be enormous for others. The safety factor which is supposed to be 100 is a number dropped from the sky and scribbled on a corner of a tablecloth.

It was decided by four people around a table! This is what Bob Shiplan, a veteran of the Food and Drug Administration, said in a conference I attended. He said: “It was the sixties, we had to find a way of determining what level of product could be allowed on food. We

Got together and voila! We did it ! » In the meantime, the ADI constitutes the absolute reference value for experts responsible for regulating the chemicals which contaminate our food chain. As here at EFSA, the European authority for food safety. “Do you think the ADI is a scientific concept? »

Yes, I dare to hope so, yes of course. This is the result, of course, of scientific research. There is a consensus in the scientific world that an ADI should be set. It is not a scientific concept. Firstly because it is not a value which characterizes the extent of the risk but its acceptability.

But “acceptability” is an essentially social, normative, political or commercial notion. “Acceptable”, but acceptable for whom? And behind the notion of acceptability there is always the question: is the risk acceptable in view of a supposed benefit? But those who profit from the use of chemicals are always businesses

, not consumers. So it is consumers who take the risks and businesses who receive the profits. Our knowledge of pesticides is still partial. Research has made it possible to use poisons with economic value more safely. These men have been drinking large doses of pesticides diluted for several months as part of a study.

At the same time, fruits, vegetables and other foods are analyzed for pesticide residues. Our food is analyzed to determine the average amount of pesticides we ingest each day. This was exactly the question I was asking myself: What is the point of the ADI if we do not take into

Account the level of pesticide residues found on treated fruits and vegetables? For this, experts have invented a second tool, inseparable from the ADI: Maximum residue limits, in the jargon “MRL”. “What are MRLs?” » This is the quantity that can be found in a foodstuff. Quantity expressed in milligrams of pesticide, pesticide residue

, per kilogram of foodstuff. So the setting of MRLs is the result of a very complex process… Very complex, indeed. Let’s take the example of an insecticide which has an Allowable Daily Intake of 0.01 mg/kg of body weight. This insecticide can be used on around twenty fruits and vegetables.

How can we know if we, the consumers, will not reach the dose of insecticide considered “acceptable” in one day? To do this, managers must assess our potential exposure by measuring the amount of residue that remains on each agricultural product after harvest, through field trials. And then, we need consumption studies

To determine which fruits and vegetables, and in what quantities, we eat daily, taking into account eating habits which vary from one country or continent to another. The result: thousands of figures to establish Maximum Authorized Residue Limits, food by food.

Who sets these figures? A United Nations body which responds to the barbaric name of “Codex Alimentarius”. Responsible for developing food standards at the international level, it is advised by two committees, which report to the WHO and the FAO: the Joint Committee of Experts on Food Additives, called “JECFA”, and the Joint Committee on

Food Additives . pesticide residue, or “JMPR”. I was granted exceptional permission to attend the JMPR annual meeting. Made up of international experts, its mission is to examine the toxicological data of pesticides, to establish their ADI, but also to set the MRLs for each agricultural product.

During the September 2009 session, 21 pesticides were evaluated, including chlorpyrifos methyl, an insecticide manufactured by the American firm Dow Agrosciences. Take the example of chrlorpyrifos methyl, which is used as an insecticide around the world. How can we know if a consumer has not reached the ADI for chrlopyrifos

Methyl simply by eating three apples and two grapefruits, for example, is a question? Yes, I understand your question, but you should know that the MRL level that we evaluate is much higher than your actual exposure. From our monitoring programs, we know that

Not all the apples you eat have been treated with chlorpyrifos methyl. One should understand that our assessment of consumption actually corresponds to the theoretical worst case. It has nothing to do with the real world. In the real world you will have

A mixture of potatoes on your plate that have been treated, but also carrots or lettuces that have not been treated, so the likelihood that you will receive in a day a very high level of residues of this pesticide is extremely low.

To tell the truth, it’s not really reassuring. Concretely, this assessment of the “ theoretical worst case” is calculated from data sent by the industry. These occupy kilometers of shelves in the basements of the WHO. For each pesticide, the manufacturer sends thousands of pages concerning toxicological studies

And residue measurements carried out during field trials. Evil tongues claim that it is an industry strategy to flood experts with data that is difficult to verify, unless you spend months on it… We are resuming the session! It is impossible to know how the experts work, because we were not authorized

To record the sound of the debates! Indeed, at the JMPR, everything is secret: the identity of the experts, the content of the sessions which are held behind closed doors, and the data sent by the industry, which are covered by commercial secrecy!

I have reviewed the list of studies provided to you by Dow Agrosciences, the manufacturer of chlorpyrifos methyl. This is very interesting because they are all “unpublished” and covered by data protection. Yes… You can check… Yes, it’s very possible. Studies provided by industry to JMPR or national authorities are data

Protected by a confidentiality clause. But if you look at documents produced by JMPR or national authorities, you will find broad summaries of this data. Summaries but not the raw data? No, not the raw data because that belongs to the manufacturer. So you must trust us

For the correct analysis and interpretation of the data… The practice of keeping data secret only serves the commercial interests of chemical companies. It is completely contrary to the interests of consumers and public health. The WHO and regulatory agencies deserve no public trust until they change their practice.

Why is the data protected? This is because of the protection of intellectual property rights. These are legal issues. The data is private and belongs to the company transmitting it. You should ask the industry why this is so… Only data that relates to the

Manufacturing process of the products can justify the confidentiality clause, because it represents sensitive commercial information. On the other hand, all toxicological data which concerns the safety or toxicity of products should be in the public domain. If we take the example of tobacco, the studies provided by cigarette manufacturers were faulty, and even manipulated

Or falsified, and the WHO was deceived for years by the industry… I have no comment to make …But is what I say true? I have no comment to make, especially since this happened before I arrived at the organization. We don’t know all the details… I know it’s a painful story here…

Yes, it’s definitely a painful story. I’m not sure it’s comparable with the pesticide situation. But it is a fact that data protection is the subject of an intense debate here and we will see where that leads us… In the meantime one thing is certain. For the industry, the stakes are enormous: the annual

Pesticide market represents 25 billion Euros. In Europe, some 400 molecules are authorized and 140,000 tonnes are sprayed each year. Each pesticide has its ADI and MRLs for each category of agricultural product. When we see all these figures, we say to ourselves that the beautiful regulatory construction could

Be reassuring if the ADI and the MRLs were scientific values ​​sufficiently secure to be definitive. But this is not the case, this is what the example shows procymidone, a fungicide re-examined by the JMPR, at the request of the European Food Safety Authority. The European Union has expressed concerns

About the limits we have set. You are right, ultimately the EFSA decided to lower the ADI for procymidone. I have here the EFSA document which, I quote, “proposes changing the MRLs in order to reduce consumer exposure to a level

Where it is estimated that there will be no negative effects on their health “. When I read this EFSA document, I understand that the ADI or MRLs set by EFSA or JMPR are never final? Yes, nothing in life is ever definitive,

Including science. So if there is new data that forces us to change our previous decisions, then we do so. I have a document from the EFSA, published on January 21, 2009. Let’s say we change the ADI because there are new data,

That means that the ADI that was there before, which we thought was She was protecting us, in fact she wasn’t protecting us? It did not protect for this… It did not have the same… It did not offer the same protection, once again, there are

Security values ​​that are applied. So a value of 100 compared to the dose without effect so there are safeguards which are everywhere, inserted in the system so it is very unlikely that the ADI which had been set previously led to health effects . If you really want zero risk, you

Are right, you should not use pesticides. But it is a political decision. As long as politicians say that we must authorize them because farmers need them to have abundant harvests, that is the best we can do. “It’s the best we can do”: this admission perfectly sums up the first

Part of my investigation where I understood that the poison residues found on food are managed by an arbitrary and approximate regulatory system. “Here again, it must be said, there remains uncertainty. Of course, manufacturers take all precautions, analyzes and experiments on animals are carried out. For the food manufacturer, this means additional work,

Additional expense, and a waste of time. Are we sure that all food manufacturers undertake research as complete as it should be before launching a new product on the market? » The question, in fact, is unavoidable. If the regulatory process for chemicals is based on studies provided by industry, we must understand concretely

How it works. I chose the example of food additives. Emulsifiers, preservatives, colorings, or sweeteners: these chemical substances invaded our food with the birth of the food industry, which accompanied the green revolution. Their potential danger has been known for fifty years. “A consumer who absorbs, for example, a small amount of coloring for two

Weeks, for two months, for a year and two years, may have no harmful effects. But it must be foreseen that these small doses repeated for a long time, and repeated day after day, for a whole life can sometimes carry extremely insidious risks

, and even sometimes irreversible risks, because there are certain dyes, for example, which at least in the animal have been shown to be capable of causing malignant proliferations , that is to say cancers.” 300 food additives are currently authorized in Europe. Among them: aspartame, a synthetic sweetener, which is found

In at least 6,000 everyday consumer products, such as soft drinks, so-called “sugar-free” products, Canderel sweets, chewing gum but also medicines . . Its code name: E 951. The history of aspartame is exemplary: it contains all the techniques used by the industry to manipulate the regulatory process.

It all started in 1965, when a researcher from the pharmaceutical firm Searle accidentally discovered the molecule. Nine years later, the company submitted an application for marketing authorization to the Food and Drug Administration, the American agency responsible for food and drug safety.

In 1981, the FDA approved the product under the name “Nutrasweet” with an ADI of 50 mg. Do you think aspartame is safe? Yes I think so. When the FDA established the ADI for aspartame, was it based on studies provided by Searle, the manufacturer? Quite.

Here we are at the heart of the problem. The studies submitted by Searle to obtain approval for aspartame were the subject of heated controversy in the 1970s. Originally, John Olney, a neurologist seen here in a press conference given in 1996, fifteen years after aspartame was put on the market.

Our article reports an increase in brain tumors, increasingly malignant brain tumors, in the American population. This dates back 3 years after the introduction of aspartame. What studies have you conducted on aspartame? My first study dates from 1971 and it concerned aspartic acid which is not aspartame.

Aspartame is a combination of two amino acids – aspartic acid and phenylalanine. My study showed that aspartic acid destroys nerve cells like glutamate does. Then I asked Searle to send me a sample of aspartame, which they did. I fed it to baby mice and observed the same brain damage as with

Aspartic acid or glutamate. But if aspartame can cause brain tumors, which is a huge health issue, why did the FDA authorize this substance? Because the FDA did not do its job properly… In fact, the way in which the FDA handled the aspartame issue is troubling to say the least.

I was able to consult the agency’s internal archives thanks to the tenacity of Betty Martini, who created a documentation center on aspartame, called “Mission Possible International”. She accumulates evidence there, obtained thanks to the “Freedom of Information Act”, an American procedure which allows any citizen to have access

To administration documents. I discovered that, alerted by John Olney, the FDA had created two internal investigations to assess the validity of the data provided by Searle. Finally, in August 1977, Dr. Jérôme Bressler wrote a very severe report, where he denounced all the irregularities noted in the firm’s studies. Here is an extract:

“The observation reports indicate that animal No. A23 LM was alive at week 88, dead from week 92 to week 104, alive at week 108 and dead at week 112” Then , the FDA established a public inquiry commission which released its report on September 30, 1980:

“The commission concludes that the use of aspartame in foods should not be authorized until the question of its possible carcinogenic potential is resolved.” has not been resolved by further studies. The “irregularities” noted by FDA scientists were confirmed during hearings organized by Congress in 1987. And in particular by Jacqueline Verrett,

A toxicologist at the agency. There is no doubt about it, Nutrasweet has captured the hearts and taste buds of American consumers. I have no qualms in saying that if we are basing the amount of Aspartame that we are putting in all these foods today on these studies, then it is a disaster.

I wholeheartedly say that if we base the amount of aspartame in foods on these studies, it’s a disaster. In my opinion, they are unreliable due to procedural flaws in their production which make them difficult to interpret and prevent us from determining a sufficiently reliable figure to set an ADI.

Your colleague, Dr. Verrett wrote this book “Eating can be dangerous for your health”. Please open it to page 96. I would like your comment, because you have been working here for a very long time. She writes: “It’s not that government decision-makers are corrupt… – that’s good news, isn’t it? – but

Their sense of duty is constantly eroded by their contacts with industry and their concern for short-term effects on industry rather than long-term effects on consumers. Do you share this observation? No, I don’t agree with her at all. I don’t think any of us at

The FDA would think we were doing our job properly if we didn’t put consumer safety above any consideration for the well-being of the industry. This would subvert the security assessment paradigm. Really, I don’t agree with her at all. However, during the Congressional hearings in which

David Hattan participated, we discovered the astonishing closeness between FDA officials and the Searle company, which was headed by a certain Donald Rumsfeld, from 1976 to 1980, the year of election of Ronald Reagan to the White House. Between 1979 and 1982, four FDA members who participated in product approval

Were recruited by the aspartame industry. Pape, FDA Commissioner, Shuwan Gardner, Howard Colby, FDA Deputy Chief of Toxicology, and Michael Taylor, FDA attorney before the panel. These are not really conflicts of interest, but rather “revolving doors”. What was Donald Rumsfeld’s role in the aspartame approval process? Donald Rumsfeld left government

When Gerald Ford lost the presidency. After serving as Secretary of Defense, he was named CEO of the pharmaceutical firm Searle. The firm was based in the district he represented when he was elected to Congress and as the Searle family is very influential, they had supported him throughout his political career.

So he was recruited by Searle. After the election of Ronald Reagan, Rumsfeld joined the new president’s transition team and it was he who controlled the nomination of the new FDA commissioner. Once in office, the new commissioner brushed aside the work of FDA scientists and declared aspartame

Safe. When I’m given a mission, I do my best. This is how a few weeks after the election of Ronald Reagan, aspartame invaded the American market. Immediately, as if by magic, the FDA’s decision was copied on the other side of the Atlantic.

I found the archives of JECFA, the Joint Committee on Food Additives, at the WHO. We discover that from 1975 to 1979, the committee of experts refused to establish an ADI for aspartame, like the FDA at the same time. For example, the 1978 report notes that

Because of “doubt expressed about the validity of the basic data,” “the committee deferred its decision.” Change of tone in the 1980 report where the experts decided to set the ADI for aspartame at 40 mg per kilo.

In the appendix to the report, they attach the names of the studies on which they based their decision: these are the three studies by Searle… The ADI set by JECFA was adopted, with its eyes closed, by European countries and in particular by the EFSA, the European food safety authority.

This acceptable daily intake of 40mg per kilo was initially established by JECFA, that is, the international FAO/WHO expert group and it was in 1980 and then the same ADI was also established by the committee scientist of human nutrition therefore for Europe in 1985. I went to the WHO, and I searched

In the JECFA archives and I had access to the documents. It’s very disturbing I must say… This first ADI of 40 mg is based on a highly controversial study and we have never returned to it. Even if, once again, the initial studies are highly questionable… I don’t know what to think of the

Initial studies, I don’t have the elements to judge beyond what I can read in the previous evaluations and in previous evaluations it is mentioned that a doubt was raised and that this doubt was resolved. Yes, but in the files, there are no new studies to explain why

This doubt is resolved. So. On something that was actually done 30 years ago, it may be regrettable but it is often the case. In the meantime, the snowball effect is a boon for the industry. This is what the testimony of Robert Shapiro, the CEO of Nutrasweet, a subsidiary of Searle which

Searle was bought by Monsanto in 1985. Who will verify that its claims are based on fluff? Those who attack aspartame are also attacking the independence of the world’s health and regulatory authorities. The fact is that every scientific, health, or regulatory agency, in the United States

And elsewhere, that has reviewed the safety data on aspartame has all independently come to the same conclusion: aspartame is safe. The FDA has received many complaints related to aspartame. I have here the list of harmful effects that has been made public.

There are a lot of harmful effects – 92 in total – and a lot of complaints, hundreds, thousands of complaints: headaches, dizziness, epileptic seizures, vomiting, vision problems. Don’t you find this list worrying? In fact, the FDA and the Searle company that manufactures aspartame have conducted additional clinical studies

To evaluate these effects, such as headaches or seizures . All of this was carefully tested and the result was that in a controlled environment where we know exactly the dose used, the precise moment of ingestion and the individual consuming it, we cannot replicate or reproduce

These effects. As far as I know, Searle never conducted the proper studies to determine whether aspartame causes disorders in the central nervous system. For 12 years, my patients have taught me that aspartame can cause a large number of problems. In vulnerable populations, it can cause epilepsy, depression, anxiety attacks… I analyzed

The international scientific literature on aspartame and I found 164 publications in serious scientific journals which concerned clearly the safety of the product. Of the 164, 74 were established by the aspartame industry. The 74 say aspartame is safe. The results of my investigation were remarkable

: there was a 100% correlation between the results of the studies and the origin of the funding. All industry-funded studies concluded that aspartame poses no problems. And 100% of the studies, truly independent, concluded that there was a problem with the substance. How do you explain it?

Unfortunately money is very powerful. The argument is serious because it suggests that scientists can be bribed by industry to provide biased studies. To find out for sure, I knocked on the door of a prestigious institution : the American Cancer Society, whose links with the industry have

Often been denounced. It is entirely true that manufacturers who can potentially be affected by studies contrary to their interests try to influence the judgments of politicians and the public by sometimes trying to influence research. It is a fact that there are well-done studies

And dismal studies and very often the studies that are funded by industry are designed in such a way that it is completely impossible to detect harmful effects. This means that the scientific literature is regularly polluted by studies that are not done properly. Basically, it would be a very good

Idea if the scientists who evaluate drugs did not receive money from pharmaceutical companies or if those who work on polluting products were not paid by those who manufacture them. But this is not the case ? No, the opposite is common practice. Does the industry ever try to intimidate regulatory agency experts?

I worked in a regulatory agency for twenty-five years. If they can’t beat you on science, then they resort to personal attacks. I experienced it myself, they wanted to get me fired from my job and the reason was precisely because I was doing my job.

Unfortunately, it is common for government officials to be asked to change their interpretation of data that they do not consider reliable. Some bend, some don’t. Most of the time it is very difficult due to the economic situation of these scientists who are pressured to turn a blind

Eye or remain silent. Unfortunately, there are few research centers that are completely independent and sheltered from industry pressures. This is the case of the European Ramazzini Foundation, a private institute specializing in environmental oncology . Its researchers conducted two studies on aspartame: published in 2005, the first focused on 1,800 rats, which ingested a

Dose of aspartame, close to the ADI, from the age of eight weeks until their natural death . Result: a significant increase in lymphomas and leukemias in females. The second study involved 400 pregnant females, whose offspring were followed until their death. It confirmed the results of the first

Study, to which was added a significant increase in breast tumors. Curiously, these two studies were rejected as a whole by the FDA and EFSA. Do you consider aspartame to be carcinogenic? Based on our data, it is surely carcinogenic to experimental animals.

There are a certain number, if not a certain number, of methodological inadequacies that have been noted in these studies. For example ? In particular, the fact that the rats which were the subject of these studies presented, for the most part, respiratory pathologies. We disagree for a series of reasons. Firstly, because the

Inflammatory processes that we observe in our animals very often depend on the fact that we let them die naturally without interrupting their lives arbitrarily. And, as happens in humans, in the last phase of life, pulmonary and renal complications are very common. It is very common to find inflammations

In both the lungs and kidneys. Respiratory disease causes tumors and therefore can completely confuse the issue and this is exactly what happened in this study. Did the rats in the control group have the same respiratory problem? Of course, we observed this in both the treated and control groups. The only difference between the

Two groups was that the experimental groups ingested aspartame and the control groups did not. Yes, but in any case I tell you, the majority of the results of these studies were invalidated by the analyzes carried out by the experts of the EFSA committee. To tell the truth, EFSA’s arguments didn’t

Really convince me…. Intrigued, I tried to find out who the 21 members of the EFSA food additive committee are. Since recently, each expert has been required to declare their conflicts of interest and the declarations can be consulted on the EFSA website. We thus discover that John Christian Larsen, the president of the

Committee, works for ILSI, an institute financed by food and chemical multinationals, or that Jurgen Konig has contracts with Danone. Or that Dominique Parent-Massin works for the Japanese company Ajinomoto, one of the main manufacturers of aspartame, or for Coca Cola, a major user of aspartame.

I checked who the 21 members of the food additive committee were and I saw that there was Dominique Parent-Massin who is a member of the scientific working group of the Japanese aspartame manufacturer Ajinomoto. So, for example, is that a real conflict of interest ? This means that when we evaluate

Aspartame, this expert cannot be rapporteur, cannot prepare the group’s opinion and cannot participate in the deliberations on this subject because there is a conflict. of interest. For example, in the case of the opinion which was issued on aspartame in March 2009, Dominique Parent-Massin did not participate?

No, her declaration of interest was assessed and it was considered that she had a conflict of interest. Moreover, it is also restricted, it does not participate, for example, in certain EFSA activities related to aspartame, on its own in addition to the process that we have put in place to evaluate declarations. of interest.

Transparency, in any case, has its limits. The declaration of interest from Dominique Parent-Massin that I found on the EFSA website before conducting my interviews has now disappeared! It was replaced by a new one where the expert no longer says a word about her links with Ajinomoto and Coca Cola… Strange coincidence…

A senior manager of the EFSA said to me one day “Dr Soffritti, if we admitted that the results of your studies are valid, we should ban aspartame tomorrow morning. You realize that this is not possible. If they admit they made a mistake it will lead to a loss of confidence and

Then they probably fear it will open the floodgates. There are people who are likely to say: maybe you made not just one mistake but several mistakes and maybe the whole process is flawed. “Maybe the whole process is flawed .” At this stage of my investigation, I understood that the chemical regulatory system

Is controlled by industry, whose major concern is not the health of the consumer, but the pursuit of profit at all costs. “The arrival of containers, made of plastic for example, is already raising concerns … We sell oil or wine in plastic bottles. Are we certain that

Hindsight is sufficient to decide that the traces of plastic which necessarily pass into oil or wine are not harmful? » Invented more than a century ago, plastic has established itself in all areas of life: in electronic equipment, clothing, means of transport, furniture , toys, kitchen utensils or packaging of foodstuffs.

It is estimated that each European uses, on average, 92 kg of plastics per year. 40% comes from food packaging. An example: Bisphenol A, also called “BPA”, whose annual production amounts to three million tonnes. It is found in polycarbonate products, such as baby bottles, water bottles

Or microwave preparations, but also in resins used as a coating in food cans or beverage cans. The Acceptable Daily Intake of Bisphenol A has been set at 0.05 mg per kilogram of body weight. “Plastic is present everywhere. This

Presence announces the world of tomorrow. Our children will be part of this world and our grandchildren will not see the end of it. » Plastics have long been considered to be biologically inactive materials. This is unfortunately not the case: this is what Ana Soto and Carlos Sonnenschein, two researchers in

Cell biology at Boston University, accidentally discovered . In 1987, they were working on breast cancer cells. The experiment involved causing cells to multiply by exposing them to estrogen, a natural female hormone. The cells in the experiment, like those in the control group, were kept in plastic tubes.

We repeated the same experiment over and over again and always obtained the same results : in the absence of estrogen, the breast cancer cells did not multiply, but in the presence of estrogen, they multiplied. Then, suddenly, all the cells started multiplying indiscriminately. We thought we had estrogen contamination and began checking every

Component of the process. Eventually we figured out that the activity was coming from the tubes in which we kept the tissue cultures. We therefore called the tube manufacturer who could not provide us with an explanation. He sent us several batches so that

We could detect the presence of estrogen which, in fact, was due to a change in the formulation of the plastic. The manufacturer considered it a trade secret, which is why he refused to reveal the composition to us. So it was through our independent research that we were able to identify that the substance

Was nonyl phenol. Nonyl phenol, like bisphenol A, are synthetic hormones used as an antioxidant in plastic materials. After their discovery, the two researchers decided to devote themselves to BPA, due to of its massive use in food plastics. Their originality is to expose

The guinea pigs during gestation to be able to observe the effects on the second generation. This is the mammary gland of a four-month-old mouse. We can see the conduits which will later drain the milk. They are not very numerous and have few ramifications.

Now I will show you an animal that was exposed to Bisphenol A in utero : we can see the complexity of the ducts and their ramifications. It’s four months after the exhibition. This would be a normal situation if the mouse was pregnant,

But this is not the case. At this age, a normal animal should be like this. So there is an important difference. Pregnancy is not a pathology if the female is pregnant, but if the mammary gland of a female who is not pregnant imitates pregnancy

, then this is not normal. What dose of Bisphenol A did you administer? 250 nanograms per kilo. This is a very low dose . A dose 200 times lower than the ADI. The story of Ana Soto and Carlos Sonnenschein was told in a book that hit

The American headlines in 1997. Published in France under the title “The Man Threatened with Disappearance”, it is the result of an investigation conducted by Professor Théo Colborn. She studied the impact of chemical pollution on the fauna of the Great Lakes, then synthesized a thousand studies concerning the evolution

Of certain wild species such as seagulls, whales and otters. . A real detective work which led to the creation of a new scientific concept : that of “endocrine disruptors”. I began to list all the disorders observed in these different species. In general, adult animals

Looked normal, but their young, when they could reproduce and there were young, did not make it to adulthood, and if they did, they did not live very long. old and were unable to reproduce. Can you tell us what an “endocrine disruptor” is?

The answer is very simple. It is a chemical substance that interferes with the function of the endocrine system. What does the endocrine system do? It allows us to reproduce. It allows us to function normally and it controls the entire process of building a baby, from fertilization to birth: every muscle, the

Programming of the brain or organs, all of this depends on it. The problem is that we have invented chemicals that look like natural hormones and can slip into the same receptors, turning a function on or off. The brain is disrupted and tells the body to produce

More hormones and that’s the problem. The term “endocrine disruptors” was coined during the Wingspread conference, organized by Theo Colborn, in 1991. She brought together the twenty scientists who provided the material for her book. Since then, they have met every year at a conference in New Orleans. There are

Ana Soto and Carlos Sonnenschein, Louis Guillette, specialist in alligators, Fred vom Saal, who has worked for more than twenty years on Bisphenol A, or John MacLachlane, specialist in distilbene, in English “DES”. Banned for more than thirty years, this drug has been widely prescribed to prevent miscarriages. It is considered

The model of endocrine disruptors. Because, uniquely, we have not only experimental data on animals but also epidemiological data in humans. Dystilbene really is the chemical that changed our thinking by enlightening us about endocrine disruption and what we now call the “fetal origin of adult diseases.” If we go back 70 years, dystilbene

Was the first synthetic hormone invented by Charlie Dodds in 1938. He had already synthesized Bisphenol A in 1936 as an estrogen. Dystilbene was used as an endocrine support for pregnancies, it was prescribed to more than 4 million women in the United States from the late 1940s until 1975. Afterwards, you know

Throughout history, vaginal cancers have been observed in the daughters of treated women. What did you observe when you exposed pregnant mice to dystilbene? We observed effects on their male and female offspring. In females, we observed cancers in their reproductive systems, particularly in the vagina, as

Is the case in humans. In fact, everything we saw in mice was verified in humans and everything that was seen in humans was also seen in mice. It’s even very disturbing: when we conducted our studies on mice 25 years ago, we noted that females

Of the second generation had earlier menopauses, and 25 years later we noticed the same thing in females. women exposed. So, it must be repeated that all the consequences of dystilbene observed in humans were also observed in mice and rats . And today, with Carlos, we obtain the same results with low doses

Of Bisphenol A, similar to what is found in the environment. There is, however, a difference: we obtained our first results in 2007, and if we draw a parallel with dystilbene, this means that we will have to wait until 2032 to verify it in humans. And it will be very difficult. For dystilbene,

Women who were exposed in utero have their mothers’ prescriptions as proof. While women who get cancer in 2032 will have no evidence that they were exposed to BPA in utero. I leave you with this very disturbing thought. Our next speaker is Fred Vom Saal, professor of biology

At the University of Missouri. The chemical industry has done a lot of misinformation to convince people that we are not exposed to Bisphenol A and that the amounts found in our bodies are not at all a concern. The facts prove otherwise. Just to give you an example, if you

Want to get your daily dose of BPA, all you need to do is eat Heinz tomato sauce . The same goes for products that contain lipophilic substances, such as tuna in oil. The Center for Disease Control has done several studies to measure the level of BPA in urine. And as can be

Seen in this national survey, the younger you are, the higher your BPA level . What effects did you observe when you exposed pregnant mice to very low doses of BPA? Animal studies show that doses well below the Allowable Daily Intake cause insulin secretion, increased glucose levels, insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease, brain dysfunction

And behavioral disorders. We also see dysfunctions in the reproductive systems of males and females. In females , ovarian cysts or uterine fibroids. In males, testicular malformations, reduced sperm count, abnormally low hormone and testosterone levels . Finally, we observe prostate cancers in males and breast cancers in females. Madam Minister of Health and Sports.

“The precautionary principle only applies in the absence of reliable studies. There, and in this case, reliable studies exist and conclude, in the current state of science, that baby bottles containing Bisphenol A are safe. For several years, Bisphenol A has been the subject of a standoff between

Regulatory agencies and a growing number of scientists. The issue is not only the ADI set, but beyond that, the way in which endocrine disruptors, of which BPA has become the symbol, are evaluated. At the heart of the conflict: the effects of low doses that industry toxicologists ignore and therefore do not test. Interestingly,

Regulatory agencies continue to base their assessment on industry studies, the quality of which is disputed. As for the manufacturers, they cling to the status quo by using the same argument as the aspartame manufacturers. Like here during this hearing organized in the French parliament.

So here I am taking you on a little trip around the world on what we, the industrial, we need, namely opinions from health agencies which authorize us to place the different products on the market. The current consensus of health agencies

In the USA, Canada, Europe and Japan is that current levels of exposure to BPA in food applications pose no risk to the health of populations including children and babies. When I hear your speech, which tells me “well all the agencies agree”, well I tell you “all the agencies agreed

That asbestos did not pose a problem”. And at the time we were told: “Where are the victims?” and the victims we know, we are at 3,000 dead. So the real question that arises is do we wait 40, 50, 60 years to be certain? Or is it that, based on

What we know, this convergence of studies in animals, on all the species tested, mice, rats and monkeys, the data on monkeys are extremely strong, I believe that the precautionary principle is essential. The problem is that we cannot properly protect our fellow citizens on the basis of emotion…

But how can you talk about emotion? I believe that words have no meaning at that moment… how can you speak of emotion in the face of all this scientific data? Neither Patrick, nor Michel, nor myself are talking to you about emotion. It’s true that the word “emotion” is

Very surprising. Over the past ten years, in fact, several hundred studies have been published showing the effects of BPA at very low doses, sometimes 5000 times lower than the ADI. This is what underlines the consensus statement signed in 2007 by 38 international scientists, under the auspices of the

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the United States. Among the authors, we find Frédérick vom Saal, Carlos Sonnenschein, Ana Soto, or Linda Birnbaum, the new director of the NIEHS. They write: “Current human pathologies resemble the effects observed in laboratory animals exposed to very low doses of BPA.

Such as the increase in breast and prostate cancers, urogenital malformations in male babies, type 2 diabetes, obesity or behavioral problems such as hyperactivity. Do you think BPA should be banned, at least for baby bottles, as Canada recently decided? I am a pragmatic person. I believe there is sufficient evidence to indicate

That BPA has the potential to cause harmful effects, particularly during certain very sensitive periods of development. So if I were a new mother and I was feeding my baby with a bottle, I would not want there to be BPA in that bottle. How do you explain that AFSSA, the French agency

, or EFSA… The European Food Safety Authority ! Yes, why are they clinging to an ADI of 50 micrograms per kilo? Because they didn’t look at the new data, that’s the problem. Some regulatory agencies are very slow to adapt to new science.

Basically we are saying that the process of calculating the ADI is based on false assumptions dating back to the 16th century which did not take into account the fact that chemicals can act like hormones. And hormones don’t follow the rules of toxicology. For around fifteen years, Mr.

Vom Saal has been trying to convince the scientific community to take his studies into account and he has not convinced the scientific community and most of the agencies, all the national or international agencies in charge of risk assessment; whether it’s the FDA,

Whether it’s New Zealand, Japan, the BFR in Germany, FSA in England; all agree with our risk assessment approach and with the ADI or rather the TDI that we have established. Does this mean that the principle of the dose/effect relationship does not work? The principle of the dose/effect relationship which

Is the corollary of “the dose makes the poison” is completely erroneous, it can work for certain traditional toxic products, but not for hormones, for any hormone ! For certain chemicals and natural hormones we know that low doses can stimulate, while high

Doses inhibit. For hormones, the dose never makes the poison, the effects do not systematically worsen, in endocrinology linear dose/effect curves do not exist . Indeed, if you meet scientists who support the studies and advocates of low dose effects, you may be convinced by them. Do you think it’s an ideology, the

Low doses, the “partisans” mean it’s not scientific? Do you think, I don’t know if it is. Do you think that we could base an opinion which has a major impact on public health, on hypotheses or on unconfirmed data, it is not possible.

To be honest, the response from the EFSA representative left me wanting more. Once again, I pushed open the door of the American Cancer Society, whose conservatism is often criticized. However, for its representative, low dose effects are an established scientific reality.

Do you think we have entered a new era and a new way of managing chemicals? This is obvious and for several reasons. First, because there is all this very interesting research on the effects at low doses. For certain types of chemicals, particularly those that have estrogenic effects,

There are many studies that show effects at extremely low doses. So the whole process of determining what is reproducible or what the implications are for cancer is completely new. In addition, the concept of the precautionary principle seems to make sense, if there is a potential problem, it is better to act

Immediately to prevent it. “It is better to act to prevent”: this means that everything remains to be done. Indeed, endocrine disruptors represent a large family which includes plastic components, such as Bisphenol A, dioxins, PCBs, Teflon in non-stick pans, food additives but also numerous

Pesticides. All of these products are found in low doses in our diet. And these low doses have never been tested. Likewise, the possible synergy between the residues of the different chemicals which contaminate, for example, this grape analyzed in a German laboratory has never been tested.

In June 2009, EFSA published its first annual report on pesticide residues. 75,000 items of food were collected in the 27 countries of the European Union. In total, 354 pesticides were detected in fruits and vegetables and 72 on cereals. In a quarter of the samples, residues of at least two pesticides were found.

Can they interact and with what effects? This is called the “ cocktail effect”. The question of the cocktail effect is all the more relevant since we all have a “chemical body burden” . This was revealed by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta,

Which has been running a biomonitoring program for ten years where it measures traces of chemicals in the blood and urine of volunteers. For the fourth report published in 2009, residues of 212 substances were found in almost all of the 2,400 Americans tested. With in mind, Bisphenol A and many pesticides.

I think we’ve been extremely naive in our studies by only looking at one chemical at a time, when none of us are exposed to just one substance. When we only focus on one substance, and ignore the others, I think we can completely miss the effects that can occur. Few laboratories work

On the “cocktail effect”. One of them depends on the University of Copenhagen. Toxicologist Ulla Hass tested a mixture of residues of three chemical substances, considered anti-androgenic, that is to say they affect the production of testosterone, the hormone necessary for male development. Among them: procymidone, the fungicide recently re-evaluated by JMPR experts. The mixture

Was administered to pregnant rats and the effects measured on their male offspring. Our results are very disturbing. Take for example what we call the “ano-genital distance”, this is the distance between the anus and the genitals of the animal. It is twice as long in males

As in females, this is due to the role of androgens during fetal development. If it is shorter in males, it is an indicator of hypospadias, a serious birth defect of the male reproductive organs. When we tested each product separately, we found no effects or

Malformations. But when we exposed male fetuses to a mixture of the three substances, we observed that 60% of them later developed hypospadias as well as serious malformations of their sexual organs. We have to learn new mathematics when we work on the toxicology

Of mixtures because what our results say is that 0 + 0 + 0 makes 60% malformations. What you say is scary, especially when we know that every European has what we call a “body chemical burden ”. Could what you observed in rats also happen in our bodies?

In fact, the big problem is that we don’t know anything about it. It is very difficult to understand why this was not taken into account earlier. When you go to the pharmacy to buy medicine, it says on the instructions that you should be careful if you are taking other medicines. So

It’s very clear that there can be a combination of effects if you take several medications at the same time. This is why it is not surprising that we have the same phenomenon with chemical pollutants. Everything indicates that the chemical regulatory system is at a crossroads and needs to be overhauled

From the ground up. Effects of low doses, particular sensitivity of the fetus, cocktail effect: all this was ignored for fifty years. At the same time, chronic diseases have continued to progress in so-called “developed” countries, led by cancer, the incidence of which has doubled over the last thirty

Years, according to IARC figures. How can we still deny that these pathologies are linked to the industrial model which characterizes modern civilization? When we consult your website and the cancer maps, we see that this disease is mainly present in so-called developed countries. For example, if we take breast cancer,

In red these are the regions where the incidence is the highest, it is North America, Western Europe, Australia and a little bit. ‘South America. It’s the same thing for prostate cancer, testicular cancer, leukemia, brain cancer, thyroid cancer, lung cancer…

What we know is that 80 to 90% of cancers are linked to lifestyle and the environment. This is what studies show on people who migrate from one region of the world to another, where exposure varies, they adopt, so to speak, the cancer model

Of the regions where they settle. What is worrying is that we are transferring the risk factors that lead to cancer from rich countries to poorer nations, such as overweight, obesity, lack of physical activity. Because these countries adopt our way of life? Yes, because of the change in lifestyle.

“It’s crazy, we poison ourselves all day long, we know that. » For me there is no other solution, to live in good health, you have to eat well . The environment and lifestyle: these are the two main causes of the explosion of chronic diseases of which obesity

Is the most visible sign: according to official sources, 70% of the American population is overweight. . I was able to film these images while staying twenty minutes in a supermarket in Houston. In the world of research, two schools ignore each other, although everything indicates that they

Are complementary: on the one hand, researchers who work exclusively on the environmental origins of chronic diseases, that is to say on the effects chemical pollution. On the other, scientists who are only interested in “lifestyle” and in particular the consequences of “junk food”, based on an

Excessive intake of fats and sugars, and a deficiency in plant products. Professor at the University of Quebec, Richard Béliveau is the master thinker of the second school. Author of more than 230 publications in international medical journals, he leads a team of thirty researchers who work on the prevention and treatment

Of cancer. One of the consequences of consuming junk food and industrially processed products is the overconsumption of omega 6 versus omega 3. Omega 3 generates anti-inflammatory molecules, omega 6 produces pro-inflammatory molecules. Traditionally in our diet, we consume a ratio of 1 to 1. Whether we are hunter, gatherer or farmer, breeder,

In our history, we consume a ratio of 1 to 1. With the industrialization of junk food, we mainly use hydrogenated oils and corn and sunflower oils which only contain omega 6. So the fats which come from the junk food industry or the processing industry industrial, are fats

Which now bring at the metabolic level an omega 6 omega 3 ratio of 25 to 1. When we consume industrial food, we put ourselves metabolically, physiologically in proinflammatory mode. However, inflammation creates the basis for cancer. Indeed, at the origin of a cancer, there is always a cell attacked by an

External agent which can be a virus, irradiation or a chemical product. If the body is healthy, the damaged cell is detected by NK lymphocytes, from the English Natural Killer, the “natural killers” which push it to commit suicide. This is called apoptosis. When the immune system is weakened

By chronic inflammation and the permanent attack of chemical agents, apoptosis fails and the defective cell begins to multiply: this is the beginning of the tumor, which, in order to develop, needs to be nourished by blood vessels. This phenomenon is called “angiogenesis”.

Ultimately, angiogenesis leads to the creation of metastases, that is to say the colonization of the body by cancer cells. In certain plants that we consume, called fruits and vegetables, we also find molecules which, pharmacologically, have the same effect as certain chemotherapy drugs. Some of these molecules are cytotoxic: they destroy cancer molecules.

Some of these molecules are pro-apoptotic, they induce the cancer cell to commit suicide. Some of these molecules are anti-inflammatory, they block the inflammation that the cancer cell needs to promote its development. How do we measure the inhibition potential of a food? Well, we

Have in tumor banks, human tumors that we can buy, and that’s a cancer, a glioblastoma, a brain cancer, which we grow for 24 or 48 hours, and then we Count the number of cells that have divided. There they are exposed to different food extracts. So here we have cherries,

We have carrots, we see that there is not much inhibition, but when we arrive with garlic, with Brussels sprouts, with cranberries, well we have , 90% inhibition in glioblastoma. When we isolate these foods then and then we create a cocktail of anti-cancer superfoods and then we take a mouse

Into which we implant a human cancer, that’s a mouse that was fed with mouse food . If we take the same mouse but treat it orally with the cocktail of the most anti-cancer foods that we found in these in vitro tests, well we have reductions of 90% in mass. tumor.

Little by little, I ended up putting all the pieces of the puzzle together to draw a coherent whole. The epidemic of chronic diseases observed in the Western world is due to chemical pollution and in particular to transformations in the mode of food production, where the effects of the agricultural and agri-food revolution

Combine to form an explosive cocktail. If the southern countries are spared for the moment it is because they have not yet massively adopted our way of life and eating. An example: India. According to the IARC, the incidence of the twenty most common cancers in the West is ten to thirty times lower.

In the state of Orisha, in the south-east of the country, cancers are almost non-existent, with the exception of that of the mouth, caused by chewing tobacco. In this very rural region, we ignore chemical pollution and we eat what we produce, namely fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides.

We also consume turmeric daily, this yellow powder which constitutes the base of curry. Known since the dawn of time, its anti-inflammatory and, therefore, anti-carcinogenic powers have been confirmed in more than three thousand scientific publications. What can you do with turmeric?

You make a curry and eat it or apply it to the body. All is well. After crushing the turmeric well, you can mix it in a glass of water every morning, and about ten microbes will die, and you will not have skin irritation or chickenpox. There are many benefits for all diseases

. Cows can eat it. Men can eat it. Goats can eat it. Cats can eat it. Are there obese people in your village? In the whole village, my nephew is the fattest… Where is he? He’s the fattest guy in the village! But he is not obese!

Over there, there is another person who is a little confused! Are there people in the village who have cancer? No, no one. Do you know what cancer is? The cancer ? It’s a disease When it affects the whole body, the person dies after three or six months.

Not far away, in Bubaneshwar, the capital of Orisha, the Indian Cancer Society held an international conference in collaboration with the Anderson Institute in Houston, one of the largest cancer research centers in the world. The theme of this third edition was “cancer and inflammation”. We spoke,

Of course, of the specificity of India, which is disappearing, particularly in the State of Punjab, the cradle of the Green Revolution, but also in the large metropolises where the mode is being adopted. of Western life. During my presentation, I will tell you about the global evolution of cancer. In the Western world,

The cancer with the greatest prevalence is breast cancer for women and prostate cancer for men. I will also talk to you about cancer and the lifestyle in our country, where the incidence of the disease is increasing. It is not yet as high as in Western countries but it will increase due to changes

In lifestyle and eating habits. If we do not learn from the mistakes of others, we will end up paying a very high price. The answer is simple: no chemical pollutants, no processed foods, but a healthy lifestyle, with organic food, no red meat, no alcohol, no smoking or chewing tobacco,

Etc. “Let your food be your medicine and your medicine your food.” Hippocrates 5th century BC Jean-Charles Bocquet I am listening. Yes hello, Marie-Monique Robin… You know that I made an interview request which you refused but I still wanted to be sure that you did not change your mind…

Ha, no, I am not changing my mind opinion… I’m sorry but we will not change our position… We really want to provide you with something . We are working on a written response.