Updated: Apr 25, 2022
Yes, you have read it right we are all sick that's right, we're all sick.
Both physically and mentally.
Yeah, I was hoping you disagreed. Excellent. So instead of natural ways to farm, we use pesticides. They are systemic pesticides, which means they enter the plant and run from the roots and through the leaves of a plant. There is a long-term residual effect on plants and soils. There is a link between pesticides and cancer, autism, and other illnesses when we eat these plants. Glyphosate systemic herbicide and crop desiccantHowever, glyphosate is a systemic herbicide as well. This substance is used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses that compete with crops. weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses that compete with crops glyphosate Exposure in Your Food Glyphosate can also be found in your food. Many farmers use glyphosate products in their fields and orchards. They spray it on crops like corn and soybeans that are genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, also known as GMOs. They also spray it on non-GMO crops like wheat, barley, oats, and beans, to dry out the crops so they can harvest them sooner. It gets into foods early in the food chain, before raw food is harvested and before it’s processed. Herbicides and Your HealthGlyphosate is a popular herbicide used to kill certain plants and grasses, manage how plants grow, get crops ready for harvest, and ripen fruit. It’s been in the news recently because of concerns about health risks. Where Is Glyphosate Used? Glyphosate is one of the world’s most common herbicides. It’s the active ingredient in popular weed-control products like Roundup, Rodeo, and Pondmaster. Many farmers use it during food production. It’s often used on:
Fruit and vegetable crops
Glyphosate-resistant crops like canola, corn, cotton, soybeans, sugar beets, and wheat
Plantings, lawns, greenhouses, aquatic plants, and forest plantings
Exposure to Glyphosate in Your Lawn and Garden If you use a weed killer with glyphosate on your lawn or garden, you may be exposed to glyphosate by breathing it in, getting it on your skin, or getting it in your eyes. Your risk goes up if you:
Eat or smoke after applying it and don’t wash your hands first
Touch plants that are still wet from it
Exposure to Glyphosate in Your Food You may also be exposed to glyphosate in your food. Many farmers use glyphosate products in their fields and orchards. They spray it on crops like corn and soybeans that are genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, also known as GMOs. They also spray it on non-GMO crops like wheat, barley, oats, and beans, to dry out the crops so they can harvest them sooner. It gets into foods early in the food chain, before raw food is harvested and before it’s processed. Which Foods Have Glyphosate? You may have heard in recent news that oat-based products like oatmeal, cereal, granola bars, and snack bars have glyphosate. In one report from California scientists and the World Health Organization, 43 of 45 oat-based products tested had it. Popular breakfast foods like Quaker Old Fashioned Oats and Cheerios had above-average levels. It’s also in grain and bean products like pasta, buckwheat, barley, kidney beans, and chickpeas. Some foods may surprise you, like avocados, apples, blueberries, cherries, cucumbers, dates, dried peas, garlic, lemons, olives, peanuts, pomegranates, potatoes, rice, spinach, sugarcane, tobacco, tomatoes, and walnuts. Is It in Organic Foods? To limit your exposure, buy organic products. Glyphosate is banned in organic farming. But that doesn’t eliminate it. In the World Health Organization report, one-third of organic oat products tested had traces of glyphosate. But they were below levels associated with risk. It’s possible glyphosate drifts over from nearby fields with conventionally grown crops or during cross-contamination at processing facilities that handle non-organic crops. Long-Term Health Risks Short-term exposure to glyphosate isn’t something you need to worry much about. Experts say it’s less toxic than table salt. But its long-term risk may be a concern. Scientists are divided on how much risk is involved. Reports show conflicting results. And keep in mind that most studies involve animals, not people:
Cancer. Some studies suggest glyphosate may be linked to cancer. Others suggest there’s no link. It’s a controversial topic. The International Agency for Research on Cancer categorizes glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans. In 2020, the EPA released a statement that glyphosate does not pose a risk to humans as long as it is used according to directions. They also stated that it is unlikely that it causes cancer in humans.
Liver and kidney damage. Glyphosate may affect your kidney and liver. Studies of dairy cows eating a diet of soybeans with high levels of glyphosate had higher risks of liver and kidney damage.
Reproductive and developmental issues. The EPA released a statement in 2020 that there was no evidence that glyphosate interfered with the endocrine system or hormones in humans.
Risk for pregnant women and children. Some scientists are concerned that pregnant women and children may have higher risks because children and developing fetuses may be more susceptible to carcinogens. But the EPA says there’s no evidence that glyphosate is a developmental or reproductive toxin, so they don't feel that they are at any higher risk.
Other forms of pollution
The pollution we already know the consequences of fumes from the exhaust gas fossil fuels again cancers and others sickness
Plastic pollution microplastics
Microplastic pollution has been detected in human blood for the first time, with scientists finding the tiny particles in almost 80% of the people tested.
The discovery shows the particles can travel around the body and may lodge in organs. The impact on health is as yet unknown. But researchers are concerned as microplastics cause damage to human cells in the laboratory and air pollution particles are already known to enter the body and cause millions of early deaths a year.
Huge amounts of plastic waste are dumped in the environment and microplastics now contaminate the entire planet, from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. People were already known to consume the tiny particles via food and water as well as breathe them in, and they have been found in the faeces of babies and adults. The scientists analysed blood samples from 22 anonymous donors, all healthy adults and found plastic particles in 17. Half the samples contained PET plastic, which is commonly used in drinks bottles, while a third contained polystyrene, used for packaging food and other products. A quarter of the blood samples contained polyethene, from which plastic carrier bags are made. “Our study is the first indication that we have polymer particles in our blood – it’s a breakthrough result,” said Prof Dick Vethaak, an ecotoxicologist at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands. “But we have to extend the research and increase the sample sizes, the number of polymers assessed, etc.” Further studies by several groups are already underway, he said.
It is certainly reasonable to be concerned,” Vethaak told the Guardian. “The particles are there and are transported throughout the body.” He said previous work had shown that microplastics were 10 times higher in the faeces of babies compared with adults and that babies fed with plastic bottles are swallowing millions of microplastic particles a day. “We also know in general that babies and young children are more vulnerable to chemical and particle exposure,” he said. “That worries me a lot.” The new research is published in the journal Environment International and adapted existing techniques to detect and analyse particles as small as 0.0007mm. Some of the blood samples contained two or three types of plastic. The team used steel syringe needles and glass tubes to avoid contamination and tested for background levels of microplastics using blank samples.
Vethaak acknowledged that the amount and type of plastic varied considerably between the blood samples. “But this is a pioneering study,” he said, with more work now needed. He said the differences might reflect short-term exposure before the blood samples were taken, such as drinking from a plastic-lined coffee cup or wearing a plastic face mask. “The big question is what is happening in our body?” Vethaak said. “Are the particles retained in the body? Are they transported to certain organs, such as getting past the blood-brain barrier?” And are these levels sufficiently high to trigger disease? We urgently need to fund further research so we can find out.” The new research was funded by the Dutch National Organisation for Health Research and Development and Common Seas, a social enterprise working to reduce plastic pollution.
Plastic production is set to double by 2040,” said Jo Royle, founder of the charity Common Seas. “We have a right to know what all this plastic is doing to our bodies.” Common Seas, along with more than 80 NGOs, scientists and MPs, are asking the UK government to allocate £15m to research the human health impacts of plastic. The EU is already funding research on the impact of microplastic on foetuses and babies, and on the immune system. A recent study found that microplastics can latch onto the outer membranes of red blood cells and may limit their ability to transport oxygen. The particles have also been found in the placentas of pregnant women, and in pregnant rats, they pass rapidly through the lungs into the hearts, brains and other organs of the foetuses. A new review paper published on Tuesday, co-authored by Vethaak, assessed cancer risk and concluded: “More detailed research on how micro-and nano-plastics affect the structures and processes of the human body, and whether and how they can transform cells and induce carcinogenesis, is urgently needed, particularly in light of the exponential increase in plastic production. The problem is becoming more urgent with each day.”
Now the mental health
Mental disorders include depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and other psychoses, dementia, and developmental disorders including autism.
our lifestyle is causing stress, anxiety depression, and dementia.
the lake of nature in our urban spaces causes increases in that
we are animals and we are part of nature but we consider we are not we believe we are superior to nature, our primaeval brain must be in touch with his mother, mother nature.
the stress of our lifestyle and the poor environment of our city with no nature is causing depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and other psychoses, dementia, and developmental disorders including autism.
Nature: How connecting with nature benefits our mental health
Executive summary Our relationship with nature – how much we notice, think about and appreciate our natural surroundings – is a critical factor in supporting good mental health and preventing distress. Nature is an important need for many and vital in keeping us emotionally, psychologically and physically healthy. When it comes to mental health benefits, nature has a very wide definition. It can mean green spaces such as parks, woodland or forests as well as blue spaces like rivers, wetlands, beaches or canals. It also includes trees on an urban street, private gardens, verges and even indoor plants or window boxes. Surprisingly, even watching nature documentaries has been shown to be good for our mental health. This is great news as it means the mental health benefits of nature can be made available to nearly every one of us, no matter where we live. This report provides a summary of the evidence of how and why our relationship with nature is so important and beneficial to our mental health. The report highlights the unequal access to nature’s benefits for specific groups and the steps needed to address that inequality. Nature has played a critical role in our mental health during the pandemic Through our own research at the Mental Health Foundation, we know that spending time outdoors has been one of the key factors enabling people to cope with the stress of the Covid-19 pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, nearly half (45%) of people in the UK told us that visiting green spaces, such as parks, helped them to cope. Our findings are echoed by other research which has found that people visiting and noticing nature, in particular, was important in supporting their wellbeing. This is a really important point, as it helps us to understand that a connection with nature helps unlock the mental health benefits – and it also gives us essential clues on how to maximise these benefits for our wellbeing. Quality counts. Connecting with nature is critical Spending time in nature is good for us for lots of reasons. “Fresh air and exercise” have long been recommended as a way for many to feel better, physically and mentally. Now evidence shows us that the quality of our relationship with nature is part of the reason for its positive impact on our wellbeing. Researchers use the term “connectedness” to describe the ideal relationship. Connectedness refers to the way we relate to nature and experience nature. A strong connection with nature means feeling a close relationship or an emotional attachment to our natural surroundings. There are ways that we can develop our connectedness with nature. Activities that involve the senses can help to develop our connection with the natural world, as can activities where we feel emotions such as compassion, perceive beauty or find meaning in nature. For instance, we might notice the beauty of nature by listening intently to birdsong or touching the bark of trees. Smelling flowers or feeling the soil between our fingers whilst planting bulbs in the garden are also highly sensual ways to connect with nature. We don’t always have to be in nature to further our relationship with the natural world: writing a poem about our favourite nature spot or reflecting on preferred walks helps us consciously notice, consider and pause to appreciate the good things in nature. People with good nature connectedness tend to be happier Research shows that people who are more connected with nature are usually happier in life and more likely to report feeling their lives are worthwhile. Nature can generate a multitude of positive emotions, such as calmness, joy, and creativity and can facilitate concentration. Nature connectedness is also associated with lower levels of poor mental health; in particular lower depression and anxiety levels. Perhaps not surprisingly, people with strong nature connectedness are also more likely to have pro-environmental behaviours such as recycling items or buying seasonal food. This is likely to lead to further benefits if these pro-environmental activities can lead to improvements in nature that we can then go on to enjoy. At a time of devastating environmental threats, developing a stronger mutually supportive relationship between people and the environment will be critical. Green and serene. We benefit from “high quality” nature spaces “High quality” natural spaces are better for us and our wellbeing. Quality can mean higher biodiversity (a wide variety of plants and wildlife). Whether we are in rural or urban spaces, certain characteristics of nature are particularly important. These include the amount of “green” in trees, plants, and grass, the variety of plants and wildlife, and “serene” landscapes that feel calm and quiet. Cleanliness, such as the absence of litter, in natural spaces is also a factor in how much our mental health benefits from spending time outside. Cleaner nature areas are linked to lower rates of depression. Nature is everywhere, but high-quality nature isn’t available equally Whilst nature can be found anywhere, high-quality nature spaces which we know are most likely to help support good mental health are not available equally to everyone in the UK. This is a more complicated picture than just how far we live from a high-quality nature space. Proximity is certainly a factor, with deprived communities least likely to live near a high-quality nature space. Perhaps unsurprisingly, our poll found that people living in urban areas were less likely than rural residents to connect with nature as much as they wanted, and people without gardens were less likely than those with gardens. Younger adults in particular may face many barriers to connecting with nature. People living with a disability or health condition often face particular barriers to access, when natural spaces are not equipped with inclusion in mind or there is a lack of accessible routes. For some groups, including many women, younger people, disabled people and people from ethnic minorities, nature spaces may feel inaccessible or less enjoyable because they are not safe – from the risk of physical harm, sexual harassment, hate crime or discrimination. For many of these groups, there is a double effect of this inequality. Several groups described above not only get less of the well-being benefit of connecting with nature as a result of these access barriers, but they are precisely the groups within our population who are most at risk of mental health problems. There are good examples of initiatives in nature spaces to reduce the inequality of access and allow all groups to benefit from connecting with nature to support their wellbeing. High-quality urban parks, designed with accessibility in mind, can enable more people to enjoy and connect with nature. Other solutions include planting flowers and trees along our streets or even recreating natural habitats where new human developments such as a road have been built. These are known as “green corridors”. Conclusions The key message of this research evidence is a need to shift our attention from focusing on getting people to visit natural and sometimes remote spaces, to focus on how people can tune in and connect with “everyday” nature close to home through simple activities. We can develop a new relationship with the natural world by noticing nature, and doing so has been found to bring benefits to mental health.