Essay by Eric Worrall
Amazing how many other problems are just as important as the crisis of our time.
Chemical pollution a threat comparable to climate change, scientists warn
More than 100 million ‘novel entity’ chemicals are in circulation, with health impact not widely recognised
Damien Gayle Wed 6 Aug 2025 14.00 AEST
Chemical pollution is “a threat to the thriving of humans and nature of a similar order as climate change” but decades behind global heating in terms of public awareness and action, a report has warned.
The industrial economy has created more than 100 million “novel entities”, or chemicals not found in nature, with somewhere between 40,000 and 350,000 in commercial use and production, the report says. But the environmental and human health effects of this widespread contamination of the biosphere are not widely appreciated, in spite of a growing body of evidence linking chemical toxicity with effects ranging from ADHD to infertility to cancer.
“I suppose that’s the biggest surprise for some people,” Harry Macpherson, senior climate associate at Deep Science Ventures (DSV), which carried out the research, told the Guardian.
“Maybe people think that when you walk down the street breathing the air; you drink your water, you eat your food; you use your personal care products, your shampoo, cleaning products for your house, the furniture in your house; a lot of people assume that there’s really great knowledge and huge due diligence on the chemical safety of these things. But it really isn’t the case.”
…
Currently, chemical toxicity as an environmental issue receives just a fraction of the funding that is devoted to climate change, a disproportionality that Macpherson says should change. “We obviously don’t want less funding going into the climate and the atmosphere,” he said. “But this we think – really, proportionally – needs more attention.”
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/06/chemical-pollution-threat-comparable-climate-change-scientists-warn-novel-entities
…
The report “Toxicity: The Invisible Tsunami” is apparently available here, but as of the time of writing their website was unresponsive.
If this “Invisible Tsunami” of toxic chemicals is having an impact on human health, it is certainly not showing up in any life expectancy graphs I’ve seen.
I’m not suggesting that chemical toxicity is something which should be ignored, there are good reasons why dangerous poisons like Thallium rat bait and Tetra-ethyl lead fuel additives were discontinued. But spending huge money monitoring every imaginable chemical, that money has to come from somewhere. Spending billions of dollars on a wild goose chase, making life less affordable for people who are already struggling, would itself have a substantial large scale impact on human health.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“it is certainly not showing up in any life expectancy graphs I’ve seen”
Maybe not. But early onset cancer is a growing problem affecting young people.
And so you jump to the conclusion that it is caused by one or more of those 100 million “novel entity” chemicals whose health impacts are not widely known. Is that mere guesswork, or are you privileged to be one of the few who are privy to some secrets which you prefer withholding from the public?
No, I don’t jump to any conclusion.
That’s fair, you don’t. You imply things and knock threads off topic repeatedly.
You sure gave the impression you linked them together instead of topic drifting. That’s disappointing, Two troll points on you.
I don’t jump to a conclusion. But there is widespread suspicion that chemicals in the environment may be one cause of the caner increase in younger people. It’s worth knowing what the concern is – then you can answer it.
You stated it as fact.
Now you stated it as a suspicion.
Thanks.
Early onset cancer is a fact. Causes are speculative. But my point was that, for people who worry about chemicals in the environment, this is a clearer indicator than Eric’s overall life expectancy/
How much is due to better detection?
How much is due to better detection?
A question worth asking for ANYTHING that is “increasing”, IMO.
How many people worry about THOSE chemicals in the environment unless they are advocates of the linear no-threshold criteria?
Human physiology is resilient for most low level inputs. There are native American tribes that could drink arsenic laced water at levels that would sicken or kill the US Cavalrymen in the area in that era.
For most of those million very low concentration chemicals, biology adapts.
Fair point, definitely worth investing in figuring that one out.
From the glass-is-half-full department: might part of the reason for
increased longevity be due to some mix of those chemicals [even if
some others cause cancer]?
IMO we should funnel most of the funds for climate modelling into
research on the chemicals.
Definite Whataboutism. It’s not affecting life expectancy, but it might be doing this. Or causing more sharks to be left-handed. Definitely possibly something or other.
So be alarmed! Be very alarmed!
Well, the CliSciFi frauds have to find some other bandwagon to hop onto now that America is dropping the whole climate disaster moneymaker.
How cruel. You know it’s having the opposite, more devastating effect. You monster!
I’m not sure why you’re being down-voted for this comment, it’s a fair point.
I wonder if the ability to detect cancer earlier and screening could be one of the reasons for early onset cancer.
I wonder the same
He is being downvoted, fairly or not, because of his reputation and the post was off-topic.
Instead of the topic being the need to assess chemicals in the environment, he turned the focus to early onset cancer.
From your own link Nick:
the report revealed that while cancer deaths are falling, new cases are ticking upwards
Deaths are falling. Yaay! New cases are ticking upwards. Wah. But wait. How can new cases be ticking upwards if deaths are falling?
Better detection means more detections earlier which means more treatments earlier. But let’s not jump to any conclusions.
Thanks, you saved dozens of curious humans a Google search. Adding to the idea:
The disease cancer was known in ancient times:
“Ancient Greek physicians, such as Hippocrates, used this term to describe tumors that spread outward and resembled crabs with their claws. The Latin translation of “karkinos” is “cancer.”
Detection tech kicked in 3000 years later:
“Mammograms have a history rooted in the discovery of X-rays, with early research focused on using them to study breast tissue and cancer. Over time, advancements in imaging technology and screening practices, particularly in the 1960s and 70s, led to the widespread adoption of mammography for early breast cancer detection. Today, 3D mammography, or digital breast tomosynthesis, is increasingly used, offering improved detection rates.”
I’ve seen a machine that screens dozens of slides per minute flagging suspicious cancer test samples for human doctors to look at.
““Ancient Greek physicians, such as Hippocrates, used this term to describe tumors that spread outward and resembled crabs with their claws. The Latin translation of “karkinos” is “cancer.”
Detection tech kicked in 3000 years later:”
More like around 2500 years.
Wasn’t RFK Jnr looking into all that as part of the Trump facts team rather than the mob that can’t even diagnose dementia when it falls over right in front of them?
Yep.
Joe was a one-man clinical trial.
Observations are still being analyzed.
By a congressional committee, because the medical fraternity had already taken the 5th.
Wasn’t RFK Jnr looking into all that
What I find ironic is that the people who clamor the most over this are so vocal against Kennedy simply because TRUMP! even though he’s wanting to look into it.
Australia has the highest rate of many types of early onset cancer in the world. So it’s in your backyard Nick and you get a free hit at this one… why?
Now a true believer would go with it’s punishment for not doing enough on net zero but lets see if you can do better.
The use of ecstasy and other drugs has rather increased too. As has the consumption of Cola and that also starts with a ‘c’.
That rhymes with P and that stands for Pool!
That is not a new phenomenon, the rise started 30+ years ago according to cancer research U.K.
You need to factor in other known infectious carcinogens such as Epstein Barr Virus, Human Herpes Virus 8 and others. Genetic and epigenetic factors are involved.
Finally cancer is not one disease but an umbrella term that covers a multitude of different manifestations of disease.
Yes. None of that rules out exposure to chemicals as a fctor.
Nor does it rule out Nick Cage making more films
Shocking! IMDB lists over 100 Nick Cage movies!
Including “Werewolf women of the US”? Wellll, maybe 100 is enough.
Nor does it determine exposure to chemicals is the ONLY factor.
Genetic pre-disposition is a factor not normally discussed.
In my family, lung cancer? No. Prostate cancer? Yes.
And these are generational, going way back, pre chemical USA, pre CO2.
However what has changed over the past 30 years and that is earlier detection of potential cancers developing, improved diagnostic equipment and procedures along with increased awareness through education. MRI andCT scans have improved significantly over the past 30 years in parallel with semiconductor and software developments.
“But early onset cancer is a growing problem affecting young people.”
Nothing to do with a certain vaxxine, of course !!
Possible given the lack of the normal level of testing, etc., but not definite.
More & more cases of “turbo cancer” are being recognized, but attribution is sketchy.
It’s just a worry that cancer drugs have to go through years of clinical trials for their particular target cohorts, many being withdrawn along the way for unacceptable side effects, yet governments chose to provide unfettered approvals & support (mandate?) for an experimental novel “vaccine” based upon an immune system delivery mechanism (mRNA), whose inventor and original patent holder (Dr Robert Malone) said was not an appropriate use of this medical technology.
But governments decided that 8 billion human lab-rats was an opportunity not be missed.
It’s not what we know we do not know that is the risk. It is what we don’t know we don’t know that is the risk.
The only dumb question is the one not asked.
Note: Dumb used to mean unable to speak, as in deaf and dumb.
Medicine seems capable of keeping most human bodies functional for longer than most human minds know what to do with them. Maybe it’s time to refocus on 80 GOOD years instead of 20 extra s%$^y ones. Yeah, I know… you go first.
I smoke. Why? Because those extra 10 years promised for me quitting would see me in a wheel chair, a burden to family and society. I enjoy smoking. Why should I give up something I enjoy for a future that really is not living and has a real social cost?
Not sure why this has been given downvotes.
Think about this.
At sea, most radar works on the 3cm waveband. Crew members are continually warned about keeping safe from radar emissions which can be dangerous.
Most mobile phone systems work on the 3cm waveband. Most people keep their mobile phones close to their bodies.
Kitchen microwave ovens work on the 3cm waveband. You don’t put your head in a microwave oven.
Could there be a connection between mobile phone networks and cancer? Many years ago smoking tobacco was supposed to be good for you. Craven A advertisment?
That was an Isaac Asimov SciFi concept long, long ago. Radio has been with humanity for 80 years, myself an engineer on cell devices (phones but also other things like meters) for about 30 years. If radio signals from phones and ovens were giving people cancer, then I ought to be a giant tumor, too round and jiggly to use this keyboard.
That is right, but my understanding is that the 3cm waveband is particulaly dangerous.
Yep! Thanks to mRNA “vacines”.
Perhaps that is because we have advanced the medical technology whereby we can detect early onset cancer with greater reliability than in decades past.
Much like our radar systems can detect and record many more tornadoes than were spotted by humans in the past.
There is no measured increase in deaths from cancer, but there is an increase in diagnosis of cancer. This can be squarely put onto the massive increase in routine screening of healthy people.
Early detection has been lauded as the way we will beat cancer, but so far all it has done is to increase the number of people treated – not reduced the number of people dying. It is another public health “paradox”.
The population has substantially increased over the past few decades.
Absolutely, early detection is key.
It is likely that absent the early detection and improved treatments, given the population increases, that the raw numbers of people dying of one cancer or another would also have increased, perhaps proportionally, possibly at a great rate due to genetic diversity in the larger population.
Could be the safe and effective clot shot 🧐
“Maybe not. But early onset cancer is a growing problem affecting young people.”
At least one serious study has tied early cancer to the number of Covid ‘booster’ shots an individual has had. Copied from a SubStack article.
Atsushi Takahashi seems legitimate: https://researchmap.jp/read0146204/research_experience?lang=en
This is recycled arguments from Nixon’s War on Cancer, another of Tricky Dick’s cynical panderings to panic. California’s Proposition
65 warning labels are yet another residue of
that misadventure.
The minor little problem is that while correlation is not proof of causation, claiming an epidemic of cancer or other diseases with no increase in the rate is manifestly silly.
California’s Proposition 65 warning labels are cancer causing.
CA Propostion 65 warning labels are lawsuit causing.
How is that different from Biden’s “Cancer Moonshot?”
We have a long history of politicians pandering to panic.
Nixon’s War on Cancer was his endorsing a model from a faction at NIH, that trace amounts of industrial chemicals were causing a cancer epidemic.
As it occurred before the internet, it is somewhat difficult to research. Edith Efron’s The Apocalyptics is the major print source I found, other than living through it. The book is not all that well written, though extensively sourced.
I lived through that era, too.
This reads like another case of a politician trusting scientists, but lacking the critical thinking skills, or perhaps the time/attention span, to properly evaluate it.
We see similar today.
There is not much news on what RFK Jr has achieved to get rid of mercury from vaccines. Until I watched him on Joe Rogan, I was unaware of mercury being used in vaccines.
I worked in lead and zinc smelting for a while and went tio great effort and expense to remove mercury from the effluent stream. It is unimaginable that it is added to vaccines no matter how small and how well bound.
My brother and I played with mercury when we were kids, rolling it around in our hands. My assumption is that its danger is as overrated as most eco scare stories. I don’t doubt it is toxic in some ways, but not to the extent usually bandied about, with warnings to call 9-1-1 if a mercury thermometer or thermostat broke open, or if one of those compact fluorescent light bulbs cracked.
It’s relatively safe when rolled around as a bulk liquid, but when dropped or jostled it can be dispersed into micron and smaller particles that get into the lungs, bloodstream and internal organs where it can do terrible damage, especially if exposure is chronic.
And then there is PMA 2.5.
Dad would bring home a little mercury from work at times, personally, I think it’s really important for a kid to have a ball of mercury in his hand a few times. We’d also pick up a little plastic maze with a blob of mercury at a NY Thruway rest area on the way to relatives in CT.
Mercury compounds are another thing. The mercury in vaccines is Thiomersal, once sold as Merthiolate (stronger and more painful than Mercurochrome) what’s used in vaccines. The claim that it triggers autism is bogus.
Methyl mercury, as in fish, is bad news. Dimethyl mercury is awful news and can make it through latex gloves and skin. I lived in NH when a Dartmouth chemist died months after a small exposure. I don’t want to be in the same county as it, read
https://cen.acs.org/safety/lab-safety/25-years-Karen-Wetterhahn-died-dimethylmercury-poisoning/100/i21
We used to have all our cuts and grazes coated in mercurochrome, and we’re still here.
But I’m more concerned about using any compound to spike the immune response to vaccines. I mean, how does it know to only target the vaccine? What if you eat a peanut chocolate bar straight away after having a vaccine, does the adjuvant in the vaccine spike your risk of developing peanut allergy?
I’m pro-vax, the disease is far worse than the vaccine, except maybe when we have a dangerous untested vaccine shoved down our throats, but it seems interesting the the last few generations have far more asthma and hay fever. Maybe it’s just people who had these conditions a hundred years ago never made it out of childhood, but if there’s one thing worth investing in medically it’s a greater understanding of how allergies work.
There has been a persistent increase in ‘excess deaths’ starting when the Mrna vaccines were rolled out. Many unusual cancers presenting at stage 4 in young people and ’embalmer clots’, among other effects. Countries which didn’t get the vaccine have seen no such uptick. Dr John Campbell has a Youtube channel covering all this.
3 points, all of very dubious verity..
Just stop and think about it for a wee moment. Many people made a fortune out of the pandemic. If they could do it again, they would. But they cannot. Because there is no uptick in excess deaths.
A Dr with a YouTube channel should not be trusted. Anymore than any other influencer.
Well, i am not trusting YOU, that’s for sure.
I know 2 statisticians who can definately show there is (or has been) an uptick in excess death.
I gave a reason why you are being deceived.
You gave an assertion that 2 statisticians can show the uptick happened.
Link, please.
But we should believe Fauci 😉
safe and effective
There has been an enormous epidemic of early deaths in China since the end of the Covid pandemic, with huge numbers of otherwise healthy people in their 30’s and 40’s dying of heart disease, “white lung” and strokes. It is difficult not to conclude that vaccines are implicated.
Seeing as that spike in China happened before the vaccines were invented but after they stopped quarantining… It is quite easy to conclude that vaccines are definitely not implicated.
Vaccines cause time travel now? It’s as sensible as the rest of this pseudoscience.
Excess All-Cause Mortality in China After Ending the Zero COVID Policy – PMC
And China did not use the the novel mRNA vaccines, anyway.
Not just mercurochrome, iodine, too.
We played with mercury and lead. None of my siblings nor myself have any afflictions that do not have a strong hereditary lineage.
High School science classes had small (wood ?) vials of Mercury and students would get around a flat level table and each could pour their small amount on the table and push it around. When this was discontinued, I have no idea.
There is no elemental mercury in thimerasol, the ingredient in vaccines. The mercury is in a compound sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate, patented in 1927 and used in vaccines since 1928. The compound is metabolised into ethylmercury that has a half life in blood of 18 days. Its cousin methyl Mercury is significantly more toxic and is the compound found in fish such as tuna.
There are alternative childhood vaccines available that do not contain thimerasol and have been in the USA since 2001.
What is the purpose of thimerasol in vaccines?
It was used in multi-dose vials of flu vaccine, to prevent bacterial contamination.
It would be surprising indeed if more than 100 million ‘novel entity’ chemicals’ health impacts were widely recognized. I can’t imagine that humans could widely recognize 100 million of anything, let alone their health impacts or any other characteristics.
8 billion people, each with a unique, specific genome. There is a reasonable probability that any of those 100 million chemicals could affect at least 1 person.
It’s always something, isn’t it? Activists don’t care as long as it doesn’t counter their opinions.
Especially if they can get grant funding.
God forbid that any fellow alarmists would get fewer tax dollars, but give me some more tax dollars too.
Did I translate this correctly?
yep!
The life expectancy chart you show is out of date by over a decade. A dishonest denier. Who would have thought 🤦♂️
I know, right? I mean, it’s actually still growing, and fast, except for the covid blip.
Note that the chart is of “period” life expectancy while a better measure is “cohort” life expectancy. The later does not show the zigs & zags of the chart posted. Period is used by the US Center for Disease Control while Cohort is used by Social Security because it better estimates that people living longer will draw down its resources.
Nothing is simple
Well, I like Zigs and Zags, anyway…
Here’s the data to 2023. Happy now?
Leftists can never be happy, David.
Their ideology provides a 100% effective, lifelong immunity against happiness as we know it.
Are you denying that life expectancy has improved over the last 100 years or so?
Only a dishonest denier would claim that. Who would have thought 🤦♂️
I can only give 1 down vote to that comment.
I want 2.
How to choose? Should I pick (a) “dishonest” or (b) “denier.”
I choose (b). Based on my family history from Holodomor through the Holocaust, “denier” is a criminally offensive slur.
a denier claiming victimhood 🤦♂️
I hope your offspring, should you have any, do not have to suffer through those kinds of tragedies.
Then, those who forget history and its lessons, or rewrite history, are doomed to repeat it.
It is still a criminally offensive slur.
It’s dueling bogeymen.Yay! May the best bogeyman win.
As long as there is “the big brother” willingly to step in and spend stolen money these crybabies will keep on bitching about everything in the hope of getting attention and of course cash.
Gummibears can make you as addicted as alcohol, let’s try to ban both 1920ies style, how well that will work. Government interventions must be viewed and measured by its successes and failures, I believe the balance is mostly negative.
F.e.if it’s true that up to 5% of the human population is prone to get addicted to whatever better let them be, all efforts to counter addictions are in vain.
I admit I’m addicted too, can’t simply get enough of a stuff called liberty.
Well, the Australian government has declared an almost prohibition on tabacco and nicotine vapes. Almost AU$50 a packet now, and no duty free allowance. So what happened?
Oh yeah, all the criminal elements moved in and sell illegal cigs from high street shops. Often they force legitimate vendors to sell their products too, otherwise, well, wouldn’t it be a shame if that cigarette supply was to spontaneously combust?
Does this sound familiar to anyone in the USA?
The more government we get, the worse things get.
Prohibition does not work. USA proved that and created organized crime in the process.
Re-reading your comment, I am reminded of an old saying. Seems it is now reached the “mega” stature:
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
The toxicity of new chemical entities should be investigated before they are introduced into commerce. My experience with three major US and European chemical companies is that they are checked thoroughly, and Material Safety Data Sheets are required to document the know risk profile. That said, chemicals should be treated with respect; and monitoring for associations of chemicals, including pharmaceuticals, with diseases is necessary to protect workers and the public. Observed associations should provoke research to demonstrate cause and effect, including clarifying the mechanisms of action. Understanding the mechanism is a critical part of the process since there are so many confounding variables in the real world. Huge costs and regulatory efforts can be wasted by attributing the observed problems to the wrong root cause.
With advances in analytical capabilities, ever lower concentrations of chemicals are constantly being measured; and the current toxicity modeling approaches tend to be extremely cautious. For example, the PM2.5 regulations are based on extrapolations from much higher exposures that are assumed to behave linearly down to the limits of our analytical capability and beyond. Actual mammalian response to particulates (and to radiation exposures) show that the projected morbidity and mortality are much lower than predicted by the models.
I have a heart issue one of the drugs they offered as an update to priors was? amiodarone, They ADMIT its known to cause cancer in users BUT still promote it.
I refused. cant say the other option feels real good however either;-(
its the side effects of Combinations of chem thats a real risk as well either pills home cleaners whatever few are tested most are GRAS and thats a HUGE unknown assumption of safety. producers asked to drop Known nasties refused…why? because it would cost 2 c or so More to reformulate and they dont want to lose a cent of profits! FFS.
so yes some of us are living longer BUT as for quality of life ongoing effects OF the meds or treatments? thats overlooked
And, of course, there is the No Lower Threshold issue to reckon with. The poison is in the dose.
There may be an element* of truth in the “chemical pollution” claim.
Today’s processed foods use fewer synthetic additives and more natural or functional ingredients, but chemical exposure from packaging and additive combinations can be an issue.
Worse still, vegan processed foods rely on industrial additives to replicate meat.
*Pun intended
They are worried about toxins in food.
…. but not about then toxic chemical used in manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels.
That’s mostly in China though.. so I guess it doesn’t matter to them…
… just like slave and child labour in those industries doesn’t matter to them
Another comparable threat: Space Monsters. They’re out there.
You’ve seen them too?!?!
Thought I was alone.
Here is a quick summary of the campaign focus of Greenpeace, by decade.
It’s worth noting that the rainforest is still under threat and nuclear weapons are still being developed. But they dropped that.
They may have realised they were wrong about GMOs but that isn’t the usual reason they drop a campaign.
The point being that they pick a theme and hype it for the cash. But they have another one in the back pocket, ready to go when the current vein runs dry. It’s been plastics for a while as the reserve. And “All Chemicals” (even naturally evolved proteins?) is just a spinoff from that.
Greenpeace Campaign Focus
1970s: Origins and Anti-Nuclear Focus
Primary focus: Opposition to nuclear testing and nuclear power.Greenpeace’s first major action was against U.S. nuclear testing in Amchitka, Alaska (1971).Campaigns expanded to French nuclear tests in the Pacific.Whaling became an additional target, with Greenpeace pioneering direct-action tactics at sea.1980s: Expansion and Broadening of Scope
New focus areas: Commercial whaling, toxic waste, seal hunting, and deforestation.Campaigns addressed the dumping of toxic and radioactive waste into oceans.The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior by French intelligence (1985) made Greenpeace globally known and intensified anti-nuclear and anti-war sentiment.Focus on acid rain, ozone depletion, and the toxic effects of chemicals like dioxins.1990s: Climate Change, Genetic Engineering, and Corporate Accountability
Major shifts: Climate change became central, along with opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).Expanded global campaigns targeting multinational corporations.Introduced sustainable development themes, highlighting the role of industry in ecological harm.Intensified rainforest protection, especially in the Amazon and Southeast Asia.2000s: Fossil Fuels, Global Warming, and Energy Transformation
Priority issues: Fossil fuel dependency, renewable energy advocacy, Arctic protection.Campaigns against oil giants like ExxonMobil and BP.Promoted energy efficiency and solutions to mitigate global warming.Greenpeace opposed destructive fishing practices and continued its anti-GMO and anti-deforestation campaigns.2010s: Climate Justice, Ocean Protection, and Plastics
Major themes: Climate justice (linking environmental and social equity), microplastics, single-use plastic pollution.Continued campaigning against oil exploration, especially in the Arctic and deep sea.Legal actions and international mobilizations, including youth climate movements and the “People vs. Oil” cases.Pushed for global ocean treaties to protect biodiversity.2020s (to Present): Systemic Transformation and Intersectional Environmentalism
Current focuses: Climate emergency, biodiversity loss, environmental racism, and systems change.Strong emphasis on halting fossil fuel expansion, especially gas and coal.Support for Indigenous land rights as a climate and conservation strategy.Campaigns highlight the links between pandemics, ecological destruction, and food systems.Active role in advocating for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Patrick Moore told us..
From the 1960s…
Better living through chemistry.
Except for the alarmism we are constantly bombarded with, they question to mull over is, are we living better?
Ask 100 people for an opinion and what do you get? 117 opinions.
They’ve clearly realised that the climate scam is finished and so they are looking for a new one.
The most toxic compounds we know are all natural (elements, such as Plutonium and Lead, plant toxins such as ricin and cyanide etc.). Since the 1960s, new chemical products have been extensively tested and toxicity pretty much pales into insignificance compared to what is already out there.
If coffee was invented today, it would not be approved, neither would any of the various forms of cabbage (I keep hoping they will ban broccoli, but no such luck!).
Aspirin, too, although one can get aspirin from willow bark.
Historical note
Historically, mercury was a prominent treatment for syphilis, a sexually transmitted disease. The practice dates back to the 16th century and continued well into the early 20th century.
Or peanutbutter..
If the only way to put a stop to this kind of nonsense is to halt all government funding I would be for it. I am tired of my money being pissed away on stuff like this . Time for it to end, they can do it on their own dime.
But there is no climate crisis. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science.
The average life expectancy graph is flawed since it doesn’t correct for infant mortality. Up until very recent offspring were not even named until they reached the age of 5 because only then you had a fair change of living to the ripe of age of 75-ish.
If you average 80 year olds with the large number of dead infants aged 0-5 years that number will tell you nothing.
In reality humans, when past the first 5 years, always lived to an age between 70-80.