Most Popular Tea Bags Contain ILLEGAL Amounts of Deadly Pesticides

Pesticides are bad for you ONLY if ingested in harmful amounts. The original article is bad science. It never mentioned the amounts of pesticides found, or said anything about how much it took to be harmful.

The article is solely designed to scare and misinform the reader.

That is my biggest issue here. The idea that any amount of pesticides or toxins are bad is total bunk. Arsenic is apples, formaldehyde in pears.. most likely this site from the original article ( I didn't look) has something to sell..they always do..

The article did state "illegal amounts."
I would imagine that we ingest certain amounts of pesticides from just about everything we consume these days. Many of which have been discovered as not being healthy for human (or animal) consumption.
That's not including different toxic chemicals we might wear or use, etc.,
in our everyday lives.
What do you think about cumulative effects?
What do you think about the EU banning certain pesticides in their countries?

What are your thoughts on genetically engineered apples using a new, virtually untested experimental technique called RNA interference?

1. The article did state "illegal amounts."
2. I would imagine that we ingest certain amounts of pesticides from just about everything we consume these days. Many of which have been discovered as not being healthy for human (or animal) consumption.
That's not including different toxic chemicals we might wear or use, etc.,
in our everyday lives.
3. What do you think about cumulative effects?
4. What do you think about the EU banning certain pesticides in their countries?

1. The article simply said "illegal amounts" but didn't quantify how those "illegal amounts" were tabulated and from what recognized (i.e. scientific) information source they were concluded. And, as mentioned earlier, the "supporting" link came up as a dead zone.
2. Irrelevant.
3. Unanswerable question. If someone's diet consists of (allegedly unadulterated by pesticides) veggies and/or allegedly unadulterated meat products (whose animals are raised free-roaming "naturally" on totally pesticide-free ranges) it's moot.

4. Frankly, what concerns me more is the current (and it seems to be predominantly US) emphasis on "hygiene". Step into the supermarket and spray your hands with a chemical spray to protect you from all those germs lurking on the shelves. Spray your kids' toys and playing areas with these wonderful "antibacterials" after every use.

My response? Let your kids be kids and play in the mud, in the rain. We haven't yet reached a point where going "au naturel" (as has been the norm for so many years) is hazardous to one's health.

Of course there are certain areas where contamination of air and ground sourced contamination has resulted in major negative effects for both humans and animals.

Be sensible.

The article is speaking of illegal amounts.
What is irrelevant to you, may not be to others.
There is such a thing as cumulative effects especially for those that may be subject to constant exposure, have immune system dysfunctions, etc.
I do believe we can do with a lot less pesticides and chemicals exposure in food and other products.
As I recall lead in paint, asbestos and other products were once widely accepted.
I've got no problem with kids playing in the rain nor dirt and I do think that all these germicide products are inane and just a way for companies to make money. Soap and water work just as well.

The article is speaking of illegal amounts.

What is the illegal amount ? Illegal where?
Illegal in the US, the manufacturing country. or as declared by WHO or the UN?

Who determined the illegal amount?

The story does not say, and I can't find it on the internet.

Contact the source of article.
Personally, I don't use any of the teas listed but thought it might be of interest to those that do. I'd imagine that they'd have legal issues by the brands named in issuing the article, if their claims are deemed untrue.

Check this link?

https://www.bing.com/search?pc=ASWI&form=AMZNS2&q=what+is+deemed+acceptable+for+the+amount+of+pesticides+in+food+products

The "banning" of certain pesticides has had a hysterical result to me. These nature lovers have now had to spend 10x the amount on herbicides, are not getting control they desire and have had people sickened by the "natural" stuff. Your body does not have an empty place where it "stores" pesticides and toxins. If you have a properly functioning liver and kidneys these are flushed from your system fairly quickly. I'm sorry but do not bring "beliefs" to a fact right.

What are your thoughts on genetically engineered apples using a new, virtually untested experimental technique called RNA interference?

The "banning" of certain pesticides has had a hysterical result to me. These nature lovers have now had to spend 10x the amount on herbicides, are not getting control they desire and have had people sickened by the "natural" stuff. Your body does not have an empty place where it "stores" pesticides and toxins. If you have a properly functioning liver and kidneys these are flushed from your system fairly quickly. I'm sorry but do not bring "beliefs" to a fact right.

And if you don't have properly functioning liver and kidneys?
Still curious on your take on this?

What are your thoughts on genetically engineered apples using a new, virtually untested experimental technique called RNA interference?

What are your thoughts on genetically engineered apples using a new, virtually untested experimental technique called RNA interference?

RNAi is neither new nor untested. Maybe you should change your reading material so you absorb facts over tabloid-type fiction.

My thoughts on gene suppression? It has nearly limitless potential. Silencing the gene that causes oxidation of apples introduces no "foreign" dna, is not designed to be pesticide resistant and can help save food that would be normally thrown away because it was off color. RNAi research is hardly new. A Nobel Prize was awarded 10 years ago.

What are your thoughts on genetically engineered apples using a new, virtually untested experimental technique called RNA interference?

RNAi is neither new nor untested. Maybe you should change your reading material so you absorb facts over tabloid-type fiction.

There you go again with the snarkyiness.
Bye.

What are your thoughts on genetically engineered apples using a new, virtually untested experimental technique called RNA interference?

What are your thoughts on the ability of DNA and RNA to survive the digestive process?

If our body would assimilate the DNA and RNA of the food that we eat, we would all have feathers and hooves by now.

There you go again with the snarkyiness.
Bye.

Just the facts coupled with a suggestion. If, for instance, an online article claims that eating potatoes increases the risk of bone cancer, some people actually investigate further to see if documented clinical research supports what's been presented as "fact". Others just accept it as truth and swear off taters forever.

Noam Chomsky Stars in New Documentary About the Major Risks Humanity Faces From Pesticides

Jimmy Carter and the Dalai Lama help Chomsky uncover pesticide industry corruption.

http://www.alternet.org/documentaries/noam-chomsky-stars-new-documentary-about-major-risks-humanity-faces-pesticides?akid=14560.1194212.XJKa0p&rd=1&src=newsletter1062392&t=6

Noam Chomsky Stars in New Documentary About the Major Risks Humanity Faces From Pesticides

Jimmy Carter and the Dalai Lama help Chomsky uncover pesticide industry corruption.

http://www.alternet.org/documentaries/noam-chomsky-stars-new-documentary-about-major-risks-humanity-faces-pesticides?akid=14560.1194212.XJKa0p&rd=1&src ="newsletter1062392&t=6

How about sticking to the subject about which you posted without dismissing/ignoring comments and swinging off into a totally new direction with yet another cut and paste? "There you go again" for true.

How about you refrain from commenting about what I choose to post.
Don't like it, don't read it.
Stop trolling and act like an adult.

I think that when misinformation is spread in a public forum, people have the obligation to show that there are two sides (or more) to the story.

Unfortunately, too many people take what they read on the internet as gospel (as OT pointed out with the potato's) and I would certainly feel that I have not done a public service by pointing out misinformation and fallacies.

How about you refrain from commenting about what I choose to post.
Don't like it, don't read it.
Stop trolling and act like an adult.

A forum by definition is, “a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.”

I'll stop commenting on an open public forum when people stop posting "cut and paste" pseudo-scientific articles which they pass off as truth which they then either won't or can't substantiate with proven facts and avoid by sliding off into even more pseudo-scientific non-facts.

Grow up.

There is a certain Facebook page where the Administrator will do cut and paste postings.
Many times the stories are absolutely false, outright lies. Other times it is deliberate misinformation. If you post absolute irrefutable proof to show that the original post is misleading/a lie, the Administrator will refuse to delete the lie because "it created a subject for conversation"

I heard someone call a talk show last week and quote the misinformation that they read as fact. And the idiot host believed it.

Unfortunately, I was banned from the page for pointing out the lies, so I did not have an opportunity to correct it.

Grow up.

Maybe you can drift off topic even further and explain what you mean by "grow up". If you mean the ability to maturely and rationally question and discuss other's beliefs without resorting to petty quips and pithy retorts ...

I understand CI.
However, can you prove that the most popular Tea Bags don't contain illegal amounts of pesticides or that the article is incorrect? I'd imagine that they would be open to a huge lawsuit by the companies named in their article, if it was false and at the very least have to issue a retraction.

I understand CI.
However, can you prove that the most popular Tea Bags don't contain illegal amounts of pesticides or that the article is incorrect? I'd imagine that they would be open to a huge lawsuit by the companies named in their article, if it was false and at the very least have to issue a retraction.

With all due respect and recognition, you raised the subject as "fact" so surely the onus of substantive proof is on you? If, for instance, I posted a link to an article on potato ingestion leading to a high risk of bone cancer I would first ascertain that the information was in fact true and could be backed up by documented clinical trials. If it couldn't, I wouldn't post it.

As previously asked, define "illegal amounts" which the article you linked failed to provide. Neither large nor small corporations waste their time and resources filing lawsuits against tabloid internet sites ... Why don't these tabloid sites file lawsuits (after, of course, verifying their "facts" are correct)?