Thank you. I don't feel like the current MAHA report does nearly enough about harmful pesticide use. I realize that Rollins and Zeldin aren't as bold as Kennedy but he really needs to get through to them. We can't wait on this problem to fix itself.
I’d be the first to admit that corporations have brought many blessings. They bring teams of talented experts and engineers together to create productive enterprises, advance manufacturing processes, invent new and better products, and so forth. But there’s a dark side. Like Frankenstein, corporations are blessed with powers and privileges that are denied to living human beings, like protection from lawsuits and preferential taxes. Like Dracula, they exist forever, parasitically suck the blood of commerce (money) from circulation, ruthlessly suppress wages and create an imbalance of wealth, power, and privilege in society that strangulates progress, pollutes the environment without any care for the consequences, and impoverishes most of the population to the point that marriage, family, and home ownership are unaffordable. This is no joke. Even before the COVID contagion and its deadly fake immunizations, fertility was declining drastically and the incidence of cancer and chronic illnesses was rising exponentially due to chlorination of the water supply, pesticides, herbicides, and industrial wastes poured into rivers, soaked into the soil, and flung into the atmosphere so that it pervades and pollutes the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. President Nixon, God bless him, tried to remedy the pollution problem by creating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and equipping it with analytical equipment and scientists tasked with establishing safe levels of environmental pollution. His reward was to be ridden from the presidency on the rail of impeachment, and covered with the tar and feathers of political vilification, whereupon furious manufacturing corporations promptly disemboweled and emasculated the EPA and assumed control of whatever rules and standards they preferred. https://www.stress.org/news/the-longevity-crisis/
The powerful professional organizations and corrupt corporations that control health care are no different. They deliberately pursue profit at the price of public health, regardless of consequences. It is good that we are belatedly becoming aware of these problems. They threaten the very survival of civilization. www.stressmechanism.com
Why pesticides could threaten a MAGA-MAHA political divorce
By
Sarah Owermohle
9 hr ago
20250910-MAHA-Pesticides-3.jpg
photo illustration by Alberto Mier/CNN/Getty Images
Pesticides are a big business in the United States — a billion pounds of insect and weed killers can be used in a year, mostly to blanket acres of corn, soybeans, spinach, and wheat grown by America’s massive agriculture industry.
Banning or heavily restricting certain pesticides has been a core tenet of the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ movement, and supporters expected the Trump administration, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as its Health and Human Services secretary, to deliver.
But a much-touted strategy report by the MAHA Commission — a Trump-mandated group led by Kennedy that is supposed to tackle the drivers of chronic disease in America — emerged this week with little to show on the issue.
Now, some of the most politically engaged MAHA faithful have a warning: They aligned with the Make America Great Again Republican Party in the last election but are not afraid to abandon it.
“We will be actively campaigning to get people into office coming in the midterms that will protect our children, and we are not beholden to political parties,” Zen Honeycutt, founder of grass-roots advocacy group Moms Across America, said outside the HHS building after an event unveiling the report Tuesday.
Politicians in Washington discount how many people could be motivated to vote on this issue, said David Murphy, founder of United We Eat and Kennedy’s former presidential campaign finance director.
“The reality is, the more times you miss on your base, the more times you deny them on major key issues and campaign promises, the less likely they are to turn up to vote in a midterm election,” he said.
The decades-long pesticides battle
Pesticide use in America soared in the 1970s and 1980s alongside a boom of industrial agriculture, but using the office of the health secretary to address it in policy is an emblem of the MAHA influence.
The US Environmental Protection Agency regulates pesticide chemicals, with a mandate to balance protecting billions of pounds of produce a year against their potential toxicity for the environment and people.
The US Department of Agriculture oversees farming policy and monitors overall pesticide use; Kennedy’s department, HHS, is limited to various health agencies that fund research and track exposures, but has no legal authority over pesticides.
Nevertheless, after dropping out of the presidential race and endorsing Donald Trump, Kennedy issued a promise to his supporters.
“We’re going to ban the worst agricultural chemicals that are already prohibited in other countries,” Kennedy said in an October 2024 YouTube video, calling the plan part of a “win-win strategy I will be pushing in the Trump administration.”
When Trump tapped him to lead HHS, he was on board with Kennedy’s biggest plans. “HHS will play a big role in helping ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives,” Trump wrote in an X post shortly after the election.
Hearing a president-elect talk about these issues helped draw her and others into the MAGA fold, Honeycutt said.
President Donald Trump is joined by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a press conference in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on May 12, 2025.
President Donald Trump is joined by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a press conference in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on May 12, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Calls for more pesticide regulations have united an expansive coalition of environmental advocates, concerned mothers and wellness influencers. The movement has also pulled in farmers who argue that broad use of these chemicals is killing their soil and harming their own health.
They are particularly concerned about two widely used weedkillers — glyphosate and atrazine. These chemicals had also been the focus of some of Kennedy’s environmental legal work prior to joining the government. (In 2017, Kennedy and his legal partners sued Monsanto, the maker of RoundUp, a glyphosate product, on behalf of a client who alleged that exposure led to his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and won.)
Yet the United States’s largest corn and soybean producers rely heavily on these products, and major farming groups have warned that suggestions their pesticide practices are harmful to health would destabilize confidence in the food supply.
So from the beginning, Kennedy’s promises on pesticides were going to be hard to keep.
“If we lose the farmers, the MAHA agenda is bankrupt,” he told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.
In May, the MAHA Commission, which is made up of Kennedy, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and other officials, issued its first report outlining potential drivers of chronic diseases in America. It cited both glyphosate and atrazine, and mentioned studies suggesting their links to cancer, liver complications and reproductive disorders.
But Tuesday’s follow-up, which outlines policies for how to address the issues cited in the May report, does not put forward any bans, reforms or mandates for warning labels addressing alleged harms caused by pesticides.
Some advocates are pragmatic about the limits of what can be accomplished on pesticide chemicals. “This is not about ‘we’re gonna ban glyphosate tomorrow.’ This is about creating an offering, creating a pathway to prosperity that doesn’t require you to use so many chemical inputs,” said Charles Eisenstein, an environmental activist and former senior adviser to Kennedy’s campaign.
Even by modest measures, though, advocates found its pesticide contents toothless. The report “echoes the pesticide industry’s talking points,” Ken Cook, co-founder of the Environmental Working Group , a public health nonprofit, said in a statement.
The commission’s plan includes an effort to “ensure that the public has awareness and confidence in EPA’s pesticide robust review procedures.”
The agency has long upheld glyphosate and atrazine’s approval and maintained there is no found link to cancer, though it has, over the years, revoked approvals or rejected new pesticides.
“We can ensure the safe use of the chemicals EPA regulates,” Zeldin said on Tuesday, pointing out that the agency has already rejected six herbicides this year.
That does not cut it for some of MAHA’s most vocal supporters.
“Basically, what they’re saying is that the EPA is going to do better propaganda,” said Honeycutt.
The US Capitol building is seen September 2, 2025.
The US Capitol building is seen September 2, 2025. Francis Chung/Politico/AP
Taking it to the polls
Larger battles loom.
Congress will soon consider farming legislation that could hamstring future pesticide regulations, including by limiting states’ abilities to bolster pesticide labels or shielding pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits alleging harm caused by their products.
Anti-pesticide activists have beseeched Trump to publicly oppose these provisions, particularly the liability shields, which are written into Republican-backed bills. This summer, more than 350 organizations and advocates signed a letter to the president led by Murphy’s United We Eat.
“If Republicans do not lead, they risk losing both moral ground and political support,” the letter warned.
The fight, to MAHA voters, mirrors a longtime crusade against vaccine makers who are protected from certain liabilities.
It’s “very activating” to the MAHA base “because it mirrors the vaccine liability shield that so many of us take issue with,” said Eisenstein. Kennedy and his supporters have long argued that vaccine manufacturers should not be protected from patient lawsuits either — though, to date, neither Trump nor Kennedy, as HHS secretary, have publicly spoken about pesticide liability shields.
That means the battle over either of the pesticide measures, as well as shaping broader pesticide policy, looks like an opportunity for new allies to step into the MAHA-verse, according to Eisenstein. “I think that there’s an opportunity in the midterms for both Republicans and Democrats, oddly enough, especially for Democrats,” he said.
Others put it more starkly.
“I’m willing to help Republicans lose ten seats in the House if they go through with this,” said Murphy.
“This is my life’s work,” he said. “When do our politicians, elected officials, stand up and do the right thing?”
The idea of providing liability shields is anti-American, in addition to being dangerous. Manufacturers shouldn't get permanent protections just because they follow the rules about product labeling.
Many times, the labeling is so watered-down that it is almost meaningless. We see how drug companies have created medications that they advertise while mentioning a few of the side effects that have been observed, but not necessarily listing ALL of them. The possibilities of trickery are endless!
A script from Moms Across America: "Hello, my name is ______ and I live in __________. I am very concerned about pesticide preemption language being included in federal appropriations. I need you to help ensure that pesticide companies are not given immunity to cause harm. We need pesticide labels that reflect the latest science, and a system that allows states and localities to enact protections and solutions. Section 453 in the Interior Appropriations package would take that right away. Please work to remove Section 453. Thank you."
Stand for Health Freedom is requesting comments to CDC re newborn screening which poisons like pesticides in mother's foods do epigenetic damage changing the screening.
Stop giving the pregnant moms iron, if you actually care about health. Babies born under Adell Davis protocol were healthy, unlike what we see today with all the mom's prescribed needless harmful iron causing severe problems during their pregnancies where they have trouble with safety issues and the iron advice increases the problems. Remove the iron which is not supported by properly run scientific studies that have been properly peer reviewed to identify all the flaws in the rules of scientific analysis and methods. To have less potential developmental, metabolic, or genetic disorders, the doctors need to stop pushing excess toxic iron onto pregnant women and causing them to have heart attacks and heart symptoms. The babies don't need to be poisoned with all this toxic iron, blocking zinc, copper, iodine, and sulfur metabolism to be healthy as fetus and as breastfed newborn.
Mom's that are afraid of breast-feeding due to problems created by doctors prescribing unneeded excess iron cause their babies immune systems to not be fully developed, because they listened to doctors who fail to check discrepancies with actual science studies, but preach false narratives to innocent trusting mothers-to-be. More iron is not needed. The studies show copper, zinc, iodine, and sulfur are needed to help regulate the iron through ceruloplasmin enzymes.
Pesticides that remove or decrease the needed nutrients for health from food should be banned. The synthetic enrichment of certain vitamins and iron into about 30% of American food products needs to stop. Studies show synthetic vitamins cause sickness rather than health. I've noted the unscientific removal of needed iodine in bread and bakery products which was replaced with very toxic bromine that blocks iodine from properly interacting with its own iodine receptors to properly convert the T4 thyroid hormone into active T3 thyroid hormone. Now that government act has created a nation of severely deficient women without enough thyroid hormones to function who are diagnosed hypothyroid or with related diseases from the same iodine deficiency. This is what unscientific government interference in our food supply is doing--causing a nation of women who can't function well anymore, causing Medicare and Medicaid expenses to skyrocket to deal with a thyroid disease epidemic where most females develop this disease by about 50 years of age, if not much earlier.
Why wasn't more science conducted for the real questions?
We have dozens of studies showing that iron harms women and babies, and for that matter the men too. Why isn't anybody following the science and removing the iron filings that are "enriching" food along with toxic synthetic vitamins? Just use a magnet on your iron enriched cereal grains and question why what you see is happening. Where's the scientific studies on these iron filings in our food does not harm and that it provides advantages?
I'm tired of the absence of science determinng our RDAs. I'm tired of the RDA's being minimal standards to avoid only certain adverse symptoms. Why aren't the RDA's using common sense about optimal health? Why is the taxpayer money being misused to develop scientific faulty standards to confuse the taxpayers about how to obtain optimal health? This is a major issue that uses non-scientific standards because these problems emerge from minimal insufficient standards instead of optimal standards (without known insufficiency disorders that actually have often been shown scientifically to trigger genetic, developmental, and/ormetabolic disorders by lack of ideal nutrition during developmental stages).
Parents need to be fully informed before newborn screening occurs. That fully informed information also needs to mandate inclusion of any potential adverse side effects from the screening itself, as well as failure rates of imperfect testing, as many of these tests do not seem to have 100% accuracy.
When we have people developing sterilization drugs to depopulate this earth, most parents do not want their newborn endangered by where that private genetic data might be going when people with harmful agendas are purchasing it without consent or knowledge of parents who often weren't even informed and didn't give their fully informed medical consent for this privacy violation to occur that could be potentially dangerous and harmful to the future life of their newborn. The problem is parents can't opt out in the some states that allow that when they remain unaware and uniformed that newborn screening is happening because these parents were left out of the information loop, when they should have been not only in the loop, but provided all info about the various screening tests in terms of the shortcomings of these tests and their degree of unreliability in which directions.
Well done. Lots of important information that most Americans did not know.
Thank you. I don't feel like the current MAHA report does nearly enough about harmful pesticide use. I realize that Rollins and Zeldin aren't as bold as Kennedy but he really needs to get through to them. We can't wait on this problem to fix itself.
Rollins is Worthless
She could definitely be worse. She is pushing regenerative agriculture but it's all taking too long.
I’d love to know which representative has sponsored this atrocity. And how much they were paid by Monsanto for doing so.
Thanks for making this known.
I’d be the first to admit that corporations have brought many blessings. They bring teams of talented experts and engineers together to create productive enterprises, advance manufacturing processes, invent new and better products, and so forth. But there’s a dark side. Like Frankenstein, corporations are blessed with powers and privileges that are denied to living human beings, like protection from lawsuits and preferential taxes. Like Dracula, they exist forever, parasitically suck the blood of commerce (money) from circulation, ruthlessly suppress wages and create an imbalance of wealth, power, and privilege in society that strangulates progress, pollutes the environment without any care for the consequences, and impoverishes most of the population to the point that marriage, family, and home ownership are unaffordable. This is no joke. Even before the COVID contagion and its deadly fake immunizations, fertility was declining drastically and the incidence of cancer and chronic illnesses was rising exponentially due to chlorination of the water supply, pesticides, herbicides, and industrial wastes poured into rivers, soaked into the soil, and flung into the atmosphere so that it pervades and pollutes the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. President Nixon, God bless him, tried to remedy the pollution problem by creating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and equipping it with analytical equipment and scientists tasked with establishing safe levels of environmental pollution. His reward was to be ridden from the presidency on the rail of impeachment, and covered with the tar and feathers of political vilification, whereupon furious manufacturing corporations promptly disemboweled and emasculated the EPA and assumed control of whatever rules and standards they preferred. https://www.stress.org/news/the-longevity-crisis/
The powerful professional organizations and corrupt corporations that control health care are no different. They deliberately pursue profit at the price of public health, regardless of consequences. It is good that we are belatedly becoming aware of these problems. They threaten the very survival of civilization. www.stressmechanism.com
Rachel Carson was right. Pesticides will kill us. All of us. Every bird, bat, wildflower, and ultimately human.
From CNN:
Why pesticides could threaten a MAGA-MAHA political divorce
By
Sarah Owermohle
9 hr ago
20250910-MAHA-Pesticides-3.jpg
photo illustration by Alberto Mier/CNN/Getty Images
Pesticides are a big business in the United States — a billion pounds of insect and weed killers can be used in a year, mostly to blanket acres of corn, soybeans, spinach, and wheat grown by America’s massive agriculture industry.
Banning or heavily restricting certain pesticides has been a core tenet of the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ movement, and supporters expected the Trump administration, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as its Health and Human Services secretary, to deliver.
But a much-touted strategy report by the MAHA Commission — a Trump-mandated group led by Kennedy that is supposed to tackle the drivers of chronic disease in America — emerged this week with little to show on the issue.
Now, some of the most politically engaged MAHA faithful have a warning: They aligned with the Make America Great Again Republican Party in the last election but are not afraid to abandon it.
“We will be actively campaigning to get people into office coming in the midterms that will protect our children, and we are not beholden to political parties,” Zen Honeycutt, founder of grass-roots advocacy group Moms Across America, said outside the HHS building after an event unveiling the report Tuesday.
Politicians in Washington discount how many people could be motivated to vote on this issue, said David Murphy, founder of United We Eat and Kennedy’s former presidential campaign finance director.
“The reality is, the more times you miss on your base, the more times you deny them on major key issues and campaign promises, the less likely they are to turn up to vote in a midterm election,” he said.
The decades-long pesticides battle
Pesticide use in America soared in the 1970s and 1980s alongside a boom of industrial agriculture, but using the office of the health secretary to address it in policy is an emblem of the MAHA influence.
The US Environmental Protection Agency regulates pesticide chemicals, with a mandate to balance protecting billions of pounds of produce a year against their potential toxicity for the environment and people.
The US Department of Agriculture oversees farming policy and monitors overall pesticide use; Kennedy’s department, HHS, is limited to various health agencies that fund research and track exposures, but has no legal authority over pesticides.
Nevertheless, after dropping out of the presidential race and endorsing Donald Trump, Kennedy issued a promise to his supporters.
“We’re going to ban the worst agricultural chemicals that are already prohibited in other countries,” Kennedy said in an October 2024 YouTube video, calling the plan part of a “win-win strategy I will be pushing in the Trump administration.”
When Trump tapped him to lead HHS, he was on board with Kennedy’s biggest plans. “HHS will play a big role in helping ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives,” Trump wrote in an X post shortly after the election.
Hearing a president-elect talk about these issues helped draw her and others into the MAGA fold, Honeycutt said.
President Donald Trump is joined by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a press conference in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on May 12, 2025.
President Donald Trump is joined by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a press conference in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on May 12, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Calls for more pesticide regulations have united an expansive coalition of environmental advocates, concerned mothers and wellness influencers. The movement has also pulled in farmers who argue that broad use of these chemicals is killing their soil and harming their own health.
They are particularly concerned about two widely used weedkillers — glyphosate and atrazine. These chemicals had also been the focus of some of Kennedy’s environmental legal work prior to joining the government. (In 2017, Kennedy and his legal partners sued Monsanto, the maker of RoundUp, a glyphosate product, on behalf of a client who alleged that exposure led to his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and won.)
Yet the United States’s largest corn and soybean producers rely heavily on these products, and major farming groups have warned that suggestions their pesticide practices are harmful to health would destabilize confidence in the food supply.
So from the beginning, Kennedy’s promises on pesticides were going to be hard to keep.
“If we lose the farmers, the MAHA agenda is bankrupt,” he told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.
In May, the MAHA Commission, which is made up of Kennedy, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and other officials, issued its first report outlining potential drivers of chronic diseases in America. It cited both glyphosate and atrazine, and mentioned studies suggesting their links to cancer, liver complications and reproductive disorders.
But Tuesday’s follow-up, which outlines policies for how to address the issues cited in the May report, does not put forward any bans, reforms or mandates for warning labels addressing alleged harms caused by pesticides.
Some advocates are pragmatic about the limits of what can be accomplished on pesticide chemicals. “This is not about ‘we’re gonna ban glyphosate tomorrow.’ This is about creating an offering, creating a pathway to prosperity that doesn’t require you to use so many chemical inputs,” said Charles Eisenstein, an environmental activist and former senior adviser to Kennedy’s campaign.
Even by modest measures, though, advocates found its pesticide contents toothless. The report “echoes the pesticide industry’s talking points,” Ken Cook, co-founder of the Environmental Working Group , a public health nonprofit, said in a statement.
The commission’s plan includes an effort to “ensure that the public has awareness and confidence in EPA’s pesticide robust review procedures.”
The agency has long upheld glyphosate and atrazine’s approval and maintained there is no found link to cancer, though it has, over the years, revoked approvals or rejected new pesticides.
“We can ensure the safe use of the chemicals EPA regulates,” Zeldin said on Tuesday, pointing out that the agency has already rejected six herbicides this year.
That does not cut it for some of MAHA’s most vocal supporters.
“Basically, what they’re saying is that the EPA is going to do better propaganda,” said Honeycutt.
The US Capitol building is seen September 2, 2025.
The US Capitol building is seen September 2, 2025. Francis Chung/Politico/AP
Taking it to the polls
Larger battles loom.
Congress will soon consider farming legislation that could hamstring future pesticide regulations, including by limiting states’ abilities to bolster pesticide labels or shielding pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits alleging harm caused by their products.
Anti-pesticide activists have beseeched Trump to publicly oppose these provisions, particularly the liability shields, which are written into Republican-backed bills. This summer, more than 350 organizations and advocates signed a letter to the president led by Murphy’s United We Eat.
“If Republicans do not lead, they risk losing both moral ground and political support,” the letter warned.
The fight, to MAHA voters, mirrors a longtime crusade against vaccine makers who are protected from certain liabilities.
It’s “very activating” to the MAHA base “because it mirrors the vaccine liability shield that so many of us take issue with,” said Eisenstein. Kennedy and his supporters have long argued that vaccine manufacturers should not be protected from patient lawsuits either — though, to date, neither Trump nor Kennedy, as HHS secretary, have publicly spoken about pesticide liability shields.
That means the battle over either of the pesticide measures, as well as shaping broader pesticide policy, looks like an opportunity for new allies to step into the MAHA-verse, according to Eisenstein. “I think that there’s an opportunity in the midterms for both Republicans and Democrats, oddly enough, especially for Democrats,” he said.
Others put it more starkly.
“I’m willing to help Republicans lose ten seats in the House if they go through with this,” said Murphy.
“This is my life’s work,” he said. “When do our politicians, elected officials, stand up and do the right thing?”
It seems more substances are being added to the chemtrails, and there are more chemtrails than a few months ago.
The idea of providing liability shields is anti-American, in addition to being dangerous. Manufacturers shouldn't get permanent protections just because they follow the rules about product labeling.
Many times, the labeling is so watered-down that it is almost meaningless. We see how drug companies have created medications that they advertise while mentioning a few of the side effects that have been observed, but not necessarily listing ALL of them. The possibilities of trickery are endless!
Is there specific language that we can use? A draft letter to email our Congress critter or read over the phone? Thanks!
A script from Moms Across America: "Hello, my name is ______ and I live in __________. I am very concerned about pesticide preemption language being included in federal appropriations. I need you to help ensure that pesticide companies are not given immunity to cause harm. We need pesticide labels that reflect the latest science, and a system that allows states and localities to enact protections and solutions. Section 453 in the Interior Appropriations package would take that right away. Please work to remove Section 453. Thank you."
There are about five Republicans sponsoring it. look it up on AI. Bayers backing it.
Why isn't the call to action for contact senators, reps, etc more plainly available?
Stand for Health Freedom is requesting comments to CDC re newborn screening which poisons like pesticides in mother's foods do epigenetic damage changing the screening.
Stop giving the pregnant moms iron, if you actually care about health. Babies born under Adell Davis protocol were healthy, unlike what we see today with all the mom's prescribed needless harmful iron causing severe problems during their pregnancies where they have trouble with safety issues and the iron advice increases the problems. Remove the iron which is not supported by properly run scientific studies that have been properly peer reviewed to identify all the flaws in the rules of scientific analysis and methods. To have less potential developmental, metabolic, or genetic disorders, the doctors need to stop pushing excess toxic iron onto pregnant women and causing them to have heart attacks and heart symptoms. The babies don't need to be poisoned with all this toxic iron, blocking zinc, copper, iodine, and sulfur metabolism to be healthy as fetus and as breastfed newborn.
Mom's that are afraid of breast-feeding due to problems created by doctors prescribing unneeded excess iron cause their babies immune systems to not be fully developed, because they listened to doctors who fail to check discrepancies with actual science studies, but preach false narratives to innocent trusting mothers-to-be. More iron is not needed. The studies show copper, zinc, iodine, and sulfur are needed to help regulate the iron through ceruloplasmin enzymes.
Pesticides that remove or decrease the needed nutrients for health from food should be banned. The synthetic enrichment of certain vitamins and iron into about 30% of American food products needs to stop. Studies show synthetic vitamins cause sickness rather than health. I've noted the unscientific removal of needed iodine in bread and bakery products which was replaced with very toxic bromine that blocks iodine from properly interacting with its own iodine receptors to properly convert the T4 thyroid hormone into active T3 thyroid hormone. Now that government act has created a nation of severely deficient women without enough thyroid hormones to function who are diagnosed hypothyroid or with related diseases from the same iodine deficiency. This is what unscientific government interference in our food supply is doing--causing a nation of women who can't function well anymore, causing Medicare and Medicaid expenses to skyrocket to deal with a thyroid disease epidemic where most females develop this disease by about 50 years of age, if not much earlier.
Why wasn't more science conducted for the real questions?
We have dozens of studies showing that iron harms women and babies, and for that matter the men too. Why isn't anybody following the science and removing the iron filings that are "enriching" food along with toxic synthetic vitamins? Just use a magnet on your iron enriched cereal grains and question why what you see is happening. Where's the scientific studies on these iron filings in our food does not harm and that it provides advantages?
I'm tired of the absence of science determinng our RDAs. I'm tired of the RDA's being minimal standards to avoid only certain adverse symptoms. Why aren't the RDA's using common sense about optimal health? Why is the taxpayer money being misused to develop scientific faulty standards to confuse the taxpayers about how to obtain optimal health? This is a major issue that uses non-scientific standards because these problems emerge from minimal insufficient standards instead of optimal standards (without known insufficiency disorders that actually have often been shown scientifically to trigger genetic, developmental, and/ormetabolic disorders by lack of ideal nutrition during developmental stages).
Parents need to be fully informed before newborn screening occurs. That fully informed information also needs to mandate inclusion of any potential adverse side effects from the screening itself, as well as failure rates of imperfect testing, as many of these tests do not seem to have 100% accuracy.
When we have people developing sterilization drugs to depopulate this earth, most parents do not want their newborn endangered by where that private genetic data might be going when people with harmful agendas are purchasing it without consent or knowledge of parents who often weren't even informed and didn't give their fully informed medical consent for this privacy violation to occur that could be potentially dangerous and harmful to the future life of their newborn. The problem is parents can't opt out in the some states that allow that when they remain unaware and uniformed that newborn screening is happening because these parents were left out of the information loop, when they should have been not only in the loop, but provided all info about the various screening tests in terms of the shortcomings of these tests and their degree of unreliability in which directions.
Litigators love to litigate.