How Safe Are Pesticides? Toxins and Health with Lara Adler

How Safe Are Pesticides and Toxins

Today I have with me Laura Adler, who is an environmental toxin, expert and educator, and a certified holistic health coach who teaches other health, coaches, nutritionists, and other holistic health practitioners. How do we eliminate the number one thing holding their clients back from the results they're seeking, which is the unaddressed link between chemicals and chronic health problems? She trains practitioners to become experts in everyday toxic exposures, so they can improve client outcomes without spending hundreds of hours researching on their own. Combining environmental, health, education and business consulting she's helped thousands of health professionals in over 25 countries around the world elevate their skill set, get better results for their clients and become sought out leaders in the growing environmental, health and detoxification field.

She is also a member of the naturopathic Association of Environmental Medicine and the American holistic health Association. So welcome Laura such a pleasure to have you yeah. Thank you so much for having me I'm looking forward to our conversation yeah me too. So I want to start out this conversation with, and I want to play. Let me start off by saying like I want to play devil's advocate a bit in this conversation. I've personally found that I've had some really interesting from a psychological perspective, discussions with other kinds of respected health experts and friends of mine who also teach people whether they're in like the evidence-based fitness and nutrition space or more. You know, naturopathic doctors or more. You know nutrition experts, I've had some really interesting discussions and I found that this is an area where there's just there's very often big gaps between the conclusions that people are drawing and the evidence, and specifically within a lot of evidence-based circles. There is kind of this culture of it's almost like a response to a lot of the pseudoscience that goes on in natural health circles, where you do genuinely have some people in natural health circles who, like just don't understand science, they're, scientifically literate and they're. Like the toxins, the toxins are everywhere, we need to detox and ya, know and who just don't understand what they're talking about, and it's buzz word communicating yeah and bring over toxins, but are genuinely scientifically literate. So then, you have kind of people in evidence-based circles who are seeing that stuff and then they draw the conclusion. Well, all of this talk of toxins is just nonsense and doesn't have any scientific support, and we have you know the EPA and the FDA and they're. Studying these chemicals and they've established what a safe exposure limit – and we already have all the data and they're controlling all these things, such that they would never allow any actually dangerous amount of toxic yeah, the food supply or the water supply. Or you know whatever such that you know all this stuff is already known, and it's taken care of there's no real concern over.

That would be amazing if that was the case right like that would be. I would love that that would be amazing if that was true yeah. So there's this big territory in the middle right of like someone who actually has a nuanced and very deep understanding of the science around environmental, toxicants or toxins as they're, often commonly referred to environmental, chemicals and human health. And that's of course, why I'm bringing you on yeah so tell me kind of about that landscape. You know kind of the big picture, understanding of what is the relevance of these environmental toxicants to human health rights. So what you had just said, like oh, the FDA and the EPA or protecting us and all this stuff has been studied. I think that's a gross misconception and also a gross misunderstanding of our public policies relating to chemicals in the history of chemical regulation in this country. So the first primary piece of legislation that we had to regulate chemicals in the United States was the Toxic Substances Control Act passed in 1976 and at that time there were already 62,000 chemicals that were registered for use. They were probably a lot more than just didn't, make it onto the registration or the inventory, but during the past, after the passage of that policy, all those 62 thousand chemicals got a free pass and they were presumed safe. They never had any safety testing data. This includes things like the pee, fast chemicals that we're hearing so much about right now. Those were, you know already in use for 30 or 40 years at that time, and so then we have 62,000 chemicals that never had any analysis and there was no requirement that up until 2016, when we had a policy change to forty years for that law to Get updated so if we want to talk about the disconnect between what's actually happening in commerce in the marketplace, with the evolution of new products and new molecules and the policy, that's quote: protecting us, the law didn't get updated for 40 years. The law governing cosmetics was last updated in 1938 like we are not being protected by our federal policies, and so we have. You know all of these untested chemicals in the marketplace and up until very recently, there was no requirement that chemicals be tested prior to going to market. So in the United States, we take an innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on the consumer to prove guilt, not on the manufacturer to prove safety, and so that's why we get into these situations where we're finding out after the fact, 10 20, 30 40 50 years later. That, like oh DDT, was probably a bad idea. Diethylstilbestrol was probably a bad idea because there was nobody overseeing whether or not these chemicals had any harm. And then obviously, science evolves where we, where we're at in our understanding of the human body and the things that can affect us now, are so different from. Where they are then, and so the science keeps evolving, but our policies do not, and so the federal government is really not acting the American population and the environment as a whole in their policies, and I think what happens.

The consumers have this presumption that everything for is that's on sale in the stores, has been vetted and is safe? And you know it's just not the case, so we have that situation just as to sort of set up like how is it that we're not being protected because our policies are just grossly outdated yeah. So then we have this situation where you know, since 1976, we've added more chemicals to the inventory, and so the number that's touted is that there are about eighty-four thousand chemicals and use globally, it's closer to a hundred or 150,000 amazingly only recently, as in like last Year did the EPA actually say you know what we should probably find out how many of these 84,000 are actually being used because we don't even know, and so they did, that analysis there's approximately 40,000 chemicals that are actively in use right now in the United States or probably more, but that's sort of a rough number, and you know a number of decades ago the CDC CDC started doing human biomonitoring studies to kind of see like okay, what is in the human population? What are we being exposed to and that data doesn't tell us any health effects? It doesn't make any presumptions of what's happening. It'S just saying: look here's what the data says and there are hundreds and hundreds of chemicals approximately 300.

So far that has been measured by the CDC inside humans, so 98 % of us have bisphenol metabolites of bisphenol x' in our urine. We have you know flame retardants and heavy metals, and all of these industrial chemicals babies that are in utero are exposed to hundreds of industrial chemicals, jet fuels rocket fuels, and that's not to say that, just because a chemical is present, it's bad right. We don't want to just heart everything with the same brush. This is where a lot of people in the devil's advocate conversation. Well, everything is a chemical yeah. That's true, I was getting ready to say yeah, I'm like I've heard them before. So I know it's coming right, so everything is a chemical, and this is where this is. My favorite um dihydrogen monoxide, I'm gonna – be careful of it. Like that's water, okay and I'm always like come at me, bro yeah. You see that these memes of people were like dihydrogen monoxide. Can you know dude, you can do this, it can kill you. If you took the most it's a universal, solvent like oh yeah. They list off all these scary things and then they're like it's actually just h2o. It'S just plain water. Everything can sound scary if you make it and like everything's, a chemical right and so like, but these are the kinds of false equivalences that we need to point out because there is a difference between a substance that is proven beneficial to health and there's an end and also substances which are benign substances like water, which are actually necessary, vital nutrients for human health versus substances that have no such links with human health. There are no proven benefits they're, not a necessary nutrient for life, yeah we know and the only studies that exist on those chemicals with human health show harm if anything, yeah well and then, unless you're.

Looking at the industry-funded studies, in which case they show no associations, I find this fascinating I'll, just interject here about the new book by Robert Bellah, who is the lawyer that spent 20 years suing DuPont over the PAS contamination in Parkersburg Parkersburg West Virginia. He has a new book out called exposure. That's excellent and Mark Ruffalo is going to be in a feature-length film. This fall coming out about that story, which is going to be amazing, but DuPont's line for decades was that we have seen no evidence of harm. It'S because there were no studies, there were very and the only studies that existed were their own internal studies and those all showed harm, so they just because you can't see it just because it's not published literature doesn't mean it's safe, so absence of evidence is Not evidence of absence, yeah, and so we have to be really careful about how we're talking about toxins and chemicals and we're not. We don't mean all chemicals so, in the field of environmental, health or environmental medicine, they're, specifically looking at the chemicals that we know to cause harm, and so when we get all of that, you know the naysayers who don't understand what we're talking about, and they don't understand the nuance there, which is, which is frustrating so these chemicals are in us. Not all of them are bad. Chemicals have for sure made our lives better, easier, safer and some of that has come at a cost. The numb everything GLE chronic illness that people are dealing with has some association with an environmental exposure, whether it's an adult exposure in utero exposure early childhood exposure, we can see the data that is lining up, doesn't matter what the chronic illness is or what the health Issue is it could be everything from gut dysbiosis to acne, to Alzheimer's, to dementia, to autism, to infertility, leaky gut insomnia, brain fog, neurological issues like you name it.

There are associations in the literature to these exposures, particularly chronic exposures. So we'll go back to this idea that our chemicals have been tested for safety. Well, that's where we're looking at traditional toxicology, which does not test for chronic low dose exposures and traditional toxicology is also not testing for the endpoints that we would consider to be a harmful effect like a slight thyroid suppression and that — as fights like thyroid suppression. During pregnancy might increase the risk of autism, so they're not looking at those kinds of outcomes, they're looking at organ weight and cancer and death to determine toxicity. And so we have to be willing to suspend our understanding of what we consider something to be toxic and really kind of stress that definition, because we're not talking about acute toxicity in most cases we're not taught people say, oh if this stuff was so toxic. Why aren't people pouring into emergency rooms? It'S it's? I've heard that so many times from like the BPA and yes like. Oh, the plastic bottles like it's not that toxic, and you know frankly that to me just shows a lack of understanding of science and what the research suggests and that somebody just hasn't done their due diligence to actually investigate what the literature says. Yeah now, with that in mind, this is a nice segue into this concept of nonmonotonic dose responses, so that there's one of the common arguments from people who are saying these toxins are not of concern. They'Re in such small amounts that they're, just you know not relevant doses, they're, not near the threshold of what's going to cause some observable sort of acute poisoning effect. Therefore they must be insignificant. What are the limitations of that reasoning? So I like to say that that concept of the dose makes the poison which is really depicted in a monotonic linear, dose-response curve in a and just explain, monotonic, it's a straight line. So, if we're looking at like a graph when we got you to know, I'm like how do I do this a straight line that goes either like this or like this, so it's either a positive or a negative Association, and the key here is that the response is Predictable, it goes in one direction and that direction doesn't change, and this is this monotonic or linear. The dose-response curve is basically a visual depiction of the dose that makes the poison that was coined by Paracelsus in like the 1500s. So, hey I don't know, maybe let's evolve our science just throwing that out there. So you know it is a true but partial statement, so it is true. It is just not absolutely true. I think it was the journal Nature that published a whole article about this dialogue between toxicology and endocrinology and monotonic and nonmonotonic dose respond Irv's and they talked about. They use the word foundational dogma, that that is the approach that toxicology has around this MA. Everything as the dose makes the poison everything follows that, and it's predominantly true. So, like radiation, the small amount of radiation we get from eating a banana, it's not harmful, but the amount of radiation that we might get from say Chernobyl will kill us like. That is a substance or an exposure that has a very linear dose-response curve, and you know in traditional toxicology they're looking at you know, exposures that are thousands of times above and beyond what the average individual is going to get and then they're extrapolating downwards and they're. Looking for this, this with what's called the low L, the lowest, observed adverse effect level, so the lowest point when they see something harmful and then they go a little bit lower and they go okay. Here's the point where we don't see anything, that's the no Land then they build in a couple of factors of success, little buffer safety factors and then they actually stop doing the research and they just assume which I find fascinating. And there was actually a toxicology textbook by Hayes actually put forth that that theory has literally never been tested. It is an assumption in science that has not been tested so far in the entire field of toxicology to rest on that, without it having being tested kind of blew my mind when I read that, and so what's happening, is that when we get to these really low levels of exposures levels that are below – and this is actually how the NIH, partly how the NIH defines low-dose because that's a term that's it's, not a real number.

It's just a range – and you know they define low dose, is something that's not. That does not fall within the realm of traditional toxicology so like if they're not looking at it, maybe that's low dose. A low dose is also the range in which humans are being exposed, that's considered a low dose. So what would be the parts per million and billion? And trillion that was being exposed to these chemicals that are considered low dose and when we're looking at a specific subset of environmental chemicals, specifically endocrine-disrupting chemicals, they kind of blow. This whole concept of the dose makes the poison out of the water, and so what happens? It was fascinating because toxicology, traditional toxicology, still kind of refutes this concept there, like it's, not real. It'S just make-believe. There are no data to support it. Yet the entire field of Pharmacology and endocrinology operate on this as being fact because every pharmaceutical drug we've ever developed is delivered in the body in parts per billion in parts per trillion doses because that is the low dose level that our body responds to and as we know, there are tremendous side effect side effects, negative side effects with a lot of the pharmaceuticals that we're getting and just clarify that for a second. So let's say you take, you know a hundred-milligram dose of a particular pharmaceutical drug you're, saying that amount of milligrams is gonna be parts per million or parts per yeah. It depends on because it's not it's per kilogram per its milligram per kilogram of body weight, so it's not an apples-to-apples. You have to actually do a conversion to get it to parts per million so like when it's a human body. Yes, it's done. A little bit differently, but you know we look at you know the doses of, for example, like birth control, the amount of estradiol or synthetic estradiol that are in there are so tiny because duh that's the levels that our body is designed to respond to you. That'S why they work even, and they have a giant range of side effects.

You have dr. Jolene Brighton on your podcast recently, so you know I'm sure she talked about some of those side effects, yeah, and so that's a biologically active compound, that's being delivered into the body in these my new levels that toxicology consider wouldn't consider an issue because it well runs Into the realm of pharmacology, so toxicology and pharmacology or sister disciplines they're just on different ends of the spectrum, so pharmacology is the useful and beneficial toxicology is when the substances are no longer useful and beneficial in their toxic. But the reality is that endocrine-disrupting chemicals often display these. What is called nonmonotonic dose-response curves, which can look like a? U or an inverted? U or they can be a wavy line and the reality is they are unpredictable. So if we're thinking about traditional toxicology and that passed a path from the maximum tolerated, dose all the way down to the low L and then then, though, L and then they put in that little buffer, and then they stop. It'S that everything that's happening in those really low doses, that they are just assuming follows that same path, but with endocrine disruption, we're finding that there's all kinds of activity in there, don't, in other words, to simplify all that and distill it into like something. Very practical, a very low dose of something is not necessarily safe. A very low dose can still be biologically active. Absolutely absolutely – and you know, we've seen this with it's what blows my mind is that this is well established in the literature in some part. So if you look at the breast cancer drug tamoxifen, it actually shows a nonmonotonic dose-response curve like it's well established and so that what we have is in the beginning when you're giving somebody tamoxifen nothing happens, then they actually get a flare where their symptoms get worse and the cells start to the cancer cells proliferate and then it comes down and that's where tamoxifen really has that sweet spot.

So people who rest cancer patients who are taking tamoxifen experienced this really painful flare. So that's just showing it's going up and then it's going down, and so this is what's happening with endocrine-disrupting chemicals at these really tiny doses, so the hormones in our bodies are measured. Typically in parts per trillion is really really tiny. I like to say that our hormones or communication messengers and they communicate in whispers really quietly and so when we're being exposed to parts per trillion and parts per million and parts per billion of chemicals. It'S at a frequency that our body responds to and that's more concerning than a really high dose for those types of chemicals. Okay, so there are two other layers to this story that I think is from my understanding and I'm certainly much less of an expert on this topic than you are, but there's two other layers of this kind of safety research that I think are relevant. You tell me if my thinking is on the right track. One is this example: you gave of tamoxifen just now the fact that we know this non-monotonic response and we kind of we've done the safety research yeah. My understanding is that, like the fact that we've done it with that particular chemical, we is great, but we actually haven't done that kind of not you know, actual detailed study of the actual true effects of very low dose effects of a substance. For most of these tens of thousands of chemicals referring to so that's one layer is, we don't actually know where, as you said before, just basing it off of the the low L and nol measurements and then extrapolating down to what we think would probably be the Effect of lower doses of that substance, and then the other thing that I think is a big factor, especially as we talk about pesticide residues in conventional organic, which I want to get into we.

When you look at those studies and the conclusions, people are drawing about these pesticide residues in health. One of the consistent concerns that these toxicology researchers are bringing up is. We have no idea what any potential synergism is between low doses of multiple dozens. These different chemicals are, and we have some real indication that there may be synergism. We've got examples of synergism of chemicals in other places and there's no real studies of the synergism of these chemicals. So we all be at the safety studies that do exist. They're not taking, for the most part, they're, not taking into account these non-monotonic dose responses and they're, not taking into a bit their due these safety studies in isolation on each individual chemical for the most part studies. There are three months of studies they're, not doing chronic low-dose exposure studies that those don't exist, they just don't, and so you know there's certainly when it comes to endocrine disruption. There have been some studies that are starting to tease apart this. Like cocktail effect, you know what happens when we have two endocrine-disrupting chemicals or three and the effect compounds. So it's not one plus one equals two, it might be one plus one equals five and that's again in isolation and that's how these all of our research is done is in isolation and beyond that. We're looking at epidemiology, which a lot of people in the evidence-based space are like epidemiology, is not it's junk, but it's what we have, and you know it's not ethical – to test chemicals on humans right.

So this is what we have and that data tells us things that we should be paying more attention to and not being so dismissive of yeah. This is an important juncture. I want to emphasize this point, which is weight if you figure in these layers of the story that you just explained and that I added with the fact that these chemicals are studied in isolation, the non-monotonic issue, the reality is with a lot of these chemicals, we don't have any real, relevant research as far as these, the long-term effects of low dose exposures that are chronic for years or decades. We don't know we don't have a randomized controlled trial that lasts for 40 years or even five years of people consuming. You know people who are administered doses of dozens of different chemicals or even or even one of these chemicals and versus a group that did that wasn't, given that a placebo contribute to any of the companies that do like urine testing for these types of toxins there's no control, yes, have no control because meaning there's no unexposed control population. We are all exposed. Yes, so there's so. My point is that there's limit there's real limitations and the reason in a perfect world. We could we just do a placebo, controlled study of the substance versus no substance. We'Ve got a very clear, randomized, controlled study that we can know the effect, and but if we can't do that, as is the case with these chemicals, we have to rely. As you said on epidemiological research, which is not ideal, but it's the best, we got so the what the juncture that you're at is, you can either like either way you have to make some kind of speculative leap. For at this point, you either have to assume that all of these chemicals are perfectly benign and that these low doses can't possibly have an effect, or you have to assume that, especially since we know the effect of these chemicals in larger doses. That actually has been studied and shows clear, negative effects you can assume it maybe is more likely that they do have negative effects. Absolutely – and I think, that's you know it's airing on the side of caution because the reality is that we are all we're all living in an age where we have the highest rates of chronic disease, the highest expenditure of healthcare, and we can't afford to not look at this.

There was a really fascinating study published in 2016 that was headed by dr. Leo trace on D from the NYU Langone Medical Center and he looked at in this study – 5 % of the known endocrine-disrupting chemicals of which there's over a thousand that have been identified, using very limited criteria by the federal government. So there's probably a lot more, so they looked at 5 % of the known endocrine-disrupting chemicals and compared them to. I think it was around 11 chronic diseases or chronic health issues like cardiovascular disease and diabetes, and also loss of IQ and what they found was, and they extrapolated out the financial burden of having those illnesses, and they found that this 5 % of endocrine-disrupting chemicals contributed Contributed 340 billion dollars annually in healthcare costs and lost wages and that's 2 percent of our gross domestic product, and that is a tiny sliver, so you know like and in the European Union where they regulate chemicals differently. It was about 1/3 less of a burden because the federal the in the European Union, the European Union countries, have national health care. We can argue about whether or not it's good or not. That's not the point, but the point is that the government foots the bill for that health care expenditure and in the u.s

Because we don't have any federal mandated health care system, we foot the bill and the federal government is under no pressure to regulate chemicals differently because they don't have to pay for it. We have to pay for it in health care costs. So I think it's it's a dangerous assumption to make that these chemicals, these very low doses, are safe. So here's a good example: the FDA has set a 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight of bisphenol A as being safe per day. So there, like that's the level that's safe, so two years ago, the research team said: ok, we're going to test that and we are actually gonna administer this female a to humans because this is the level that the government says is safe. As these studies are there, it becomes ethical to do it. The study of the chemical industry actually questioned the ethics of that study, which is like, oh, come on guys. What are you so worried about if your product is safe and so what they found was that I believe it was. It might be miss speaking, but I believe it was after one day of having this exposure. They had increased insulin, resistance, one day from exposure. That's quote safe right, and so you know and there have been other studies that have found that these are my studies, but that BPA at like a thousandfold less than what the EPA considers is safe, alters leptin and ghrelin levels in the body. So, like there's all of these endpoints that are just not being explored, so we have very incomplete data about what is safe and what is not safe.

And we, if we look back historically at the track record of chemical use and what we're learning all the messes that we're cleaning up after the fact, thus there's a consistent enough pattern for me to proceed very cautiously yeah going forward right. It's I mean it's. It's basically like what makes more sense to proceed with some caution in case these chemical exposures. Even at low doses, I mean again, we know they're, toxic and harmful and high doses, it's undebatable, but even in low doses. Should we assume that there's a potential for harm, or should we assume they're perfectly safe and, like I mean one of those, two things just makes vastly more sense to me than the other one? I think that if we were living in a time where people were predominantly very healthy, I might take a different opinion, but we're not we're living in an age when people are predominantly sick. Yeah, and the rates of disease are increasing faster than can be explained by genetics when we have cancer that you know. Ninety percent of cancer is in tributed to the environment and that term environment means things like exercise and smoking, and not just environmental chemicals.

But like many of the chronic illnesses that we are experiencing right now are preventable and that's what the research says: yeah they're preventable. So you know we have to move towards the direction of limiting when and when an option exists in the marketplace. Let's choose that and the great thing is the landscape of consumer products in the marketplace has shifted dramatically last decade, so there are so many more options. It's absurd to not choose safer. Yes, I want to mention one quick thing as you're talking about the BPA study yeah, I was as I was prepping today for this podcast. I was going through a bunch of research around pesticides and endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and things like that and I was listening to there's an on YouTube. There's a really nice second hour-long lecture from Harvard Medical School that the Harvard YouTube channel and they have a panel of their Harvard experts, all talking about specifically pesticides in health and one of the guys. One of these experts on the panel mentioned he brought up the example of lead and the historically lead was thought. You know kind of these, these low L and no L measurements, and they basically thought. Oh, you know as soon as we get below this amount of lead, then it's not going to be harmful anymore, and so they kept studying, lower and lower and lower doses of this lead and they kept finding evidence of harm even at way lower doses Than they were speculating that they would find, and eventually, they just realized that lead has, has known toxic effects at like even tiny, tiny doses, and then the guy said specifically after that he concluded or he he said speculatively. I believe that we will find the same thing is true for pesticide exposure, so I think it depends.

Certainly not all pesticides are the same. Yes, pesticides are extremely persistent. Those are the ones that I think are extremely concerning, because some of those, you know, have half-lives of 10 20 years 30 years and we are building them up in our tissues, faster than where bodies are able to break them down. That's really concerning, and so you know yeah, I I think that that's probably what we're gonna find is that, as the research continues in this space, we're gonna go, you know what we got it wrong like we. We didn't really understand how bad these are. Yeah, you know I, let's dig into pesticides and conventional organic right now. There's a bunch of topics we could cover. We're not gonna have time to cover everything, but I want to dig into conventional versus organic. I want to dig into water, maybe personal care products. If we have time another topic or two, do you have a hard cutoff at five? Okay, I think we're gonna go a little overhead. So, first of all, conventional versus organic, there was a friend and colleague of mine who put out some information on this topic recently that I really strongly disagreed with, I think, even the panel of Harvard experts. I was just referring to strongly disagree with the conclusions, but some of the arguments that are being put forth by kind of skeptics evidence these evidence-based skeptics that I was referring to previously are things like. Oh, you know, there are chemicals everywhere. Even organic have chemicals too and which is true and, and you know, since they both use chemicals, one isn't superior to the other, and then they might selectively cite you know an example of like one pesticide.

That's used in organic agriculture. That's like and they'll say: oh this one is even super toxic and therefore organic is just as bad, and I I'm just curious. So what's your take on this landscape of conventional versus organic and do pesticides? Well, I guess let me also add one layer to the story which is to what we were talking about earlier. There are people who argue the amounts of these pesticide residues on produce. Even conventional produce is so small, it's barely detectable. It's in. You know, as you said earlier, like parts per trillion, it's you know you they'll say things like these amounts of pesticides are insignificant, they're, so small such that you'd have to consume a hundred pounds of celery in a day to reach any significant toxicity from the front From the pesticide residues – and at that point you know the chemicals, for example the oxalates and the spinach will be more toxic than the pesticide residues. So what? What is the problem, if you think, there's a problem? What's the problem with that line of reasoning? Well, I mean they think we just talked about this idea that low doses matter. First of all – and you know when we're talking parts per trillion. This is not a pesticide, but this will connect the level of P fast chemicals that is considered safe, is in drinking water is 70 parts per trillion, and a lot of health bodies are like whoa, that's way too high to up disease risk. So that's Ana parts per trillion, so I think that the reality is that the weight of evidence of the data is all pointing to these very minuscule amounts of pesticides, residues that are on the final product that we take back from the grocery store and into our homes. That is our primary exposure source. That's what the EPA says! That's what the NIH and the CDC says that our primary source of exposure to organophosphate pesticides, which is the primary class of pesticides that are used there's, certainly other classes, comes from our produce, and then we have studies that are saying.

Okay, if we're looking at the levels of exposure that we are being exposed to these pesticides and then correlating with them to all of these different diseases, I think you can't make that statement that those low levels don't matter, and it also reinforces this whole cocktail effect conversation we're not just eating one vegetable, hopefully we're eating a lot of vegetables in lots of fruits, and these are also not the only sources of pesticides and herbicides exposure that we're getting is certainly not through our fruits and vegetables. That's certainly a primary place, but you know when we're looking, for example, at like the environmental working groups Dirty Dozen clean 15 they're, only looking at fruit and fruits and vegetables, because that's what the US EPA market, Baskar FDA, market basket. Data is based on just fruits and vegetables, so I don't think the data set ports that we can find data that supports that the low levels of pesticides are not at all harmful, but I think that the weight of evidence is showing the opposite. I think we also have to consider – although this is certainly not a primary reasoning, why somebody would choose organic. But there have been numerous studies that show that organic foods have higher levels of vitamins and antioxidants because they have their own natural pesticides in the form of antioxidants. That are what we are seeking when we go eat a colorful, red, pepper or deep, green kale like we're looking for these nutrients and the higher nutrient compounds come there. They are the plants, natural defensive mechanism and when we rely on pesticides that they don't plants, no longer produce those higher levels of natural pesticides.

So there's that I think actually, let's dig into that, because there's some more that needs to be built out there. First of all, most people don't realize that a lot of these phytochemicals that are in plants that are associated with health benefits are, as you said, natural pesticides, insecticides that the plant produces. Now that fact, first of all, it's very interesting. There's a whole area called Xeno. Hormesis in the literature, that's fascinating one of my areas of passion, but this fact has also been used by some of these evidence-based skeptics as they've reframed. This, as though it were a bad thing. Yeah, though, they've basically said see, the organic ones have higher levels of these phytotoxins to these natural insecticides, and then they draw this false equivalence between these natural phytotoxins and synthetic pesticides and say basically saying well. You know if you eat organic you're, getting higher levels of internally produced, you know by the plant pesticides and therefore either way, you're getting pesticides. What they leave out of this story is that those phytotoxins are decidedly associated with health benefits in humans, as opposed to the synthetic pesticides which have no such benefits. Absolutely, and I think, a really key piece of information here when we're trying to say, like. Oh, organic also use pesticides. Yes, they do they're using they're, not allowed to use primarily not allowed to use synthetic pesticides and the amount of pesticides meaning the different types of pesticides is far more restricted than the thousands of pesticide products that are on the market for conventional produce. I think you know where, for example, the e WGS Dirty Dozen in clean fifteen gets it wrong. Is that they're only looking at the amount of the residue, not the relative toxicity of the pesticide and so there's a new analysis?

Dr. Lynn, Patrick has been doing this past year. It's really kind of blowing that whole concept apart and what she spots. What she found based on the public while it's in the EPA published literature, is that there is a 6,000 fold difference in toxicity in organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides. Organochlorines are most of mostly phased out, but there is a 6,000 fold difference in toxicity, so you might have a really tiny amount of a pesticide on the clean of food on the clean 15 list. That is six thousand times more toxic than the equal amount on the Dirty Dozen. So it's not just the amount of pesticide. It's the relative toxicity of those pesticides and the only way to systematically reduce our exposures is to move towards organic like that's it like. There is no cheat sheet unless you want to get into like major majorly in the weeds, with multi and on versus chlorpyrifos versus whatever, and nobody wants to do that except Flint. Patrick, there's one more nuance of this that I think needs to be understood by people which is there are people who make this argument. You know conventional, organic, both use pesticides and then again, try to draw this false equivalence. Therefore they're both equally toxic.

You just pointed out one of the big flaws of that, but the other thing is it doesn't matter really what is used on the farm? What is what is? I mean it does for the environment, which is a whole other discussion and there's a whole big discussion to be had around what's happening in the environment as a result of these chemicals too. Broad of scope for this discussion. We'll just talk about human health, but in the context of human health, we. We also know that when it doesn't matter what's used on the farm, it matters the residues that end up on the products and weight of the evidence that actually measures that and that measures also levels of pesticides in the human body. Well, it's not perfect and you can always point out. Oh well, they didn't measure this or that pesticide. So we don't really know it needs to be more comprehensive. The weight of all of that evidence is very consistently in the direction of organic produce. Having lower amounts of pesticide residues, a much higher percentage, where there are no pesticide residues at all and the pesticide residues that are detected are of lower toxic, odd toxicological concern. Yes, so I mean it's just very clear, given what we know, all the caveats of the research that we don't know.

We don't have great long-term studies on the risk of multiple exposures of dozens of exposures, long term in low doses. It is clear that moving towards organic does lower your body load of pesticides overall and lower, especially the ones of greater toxin toxicological concern yeah, and I think the other audience that we're completely leaving out of this is, you know, pregnant women they're. You know babies in utero that are extraordinarily sensitive to these minute levels of substances that can affect their neurodevelopment or their sexual differentiation. You know, and they are the most sensitive audience we know they're being exposed in utero because we have these umbilical cord studies. There's not a lot of them, but they are showing that these chemicals, you know, compounds pesticides, jet fuels, heavy metals, non-stick chemicals, etc are showing up in my new amounts and we're seeing that you know what are we also seeing in our population? Is this massive increase in neurological issues, developmental issues and children, attention issues, and you know even things like gender dysmorphia? You know we have to start questioning what is the role of these chemicals in this massive uptick in these types of outcomes that we're seeing – and you know it's such a sensitive population. I know that there have been some studies of agricultural workers, which is like a whole nother reason right like if we are consuming conventional food. We are supporting the poisoning of human beings, who are working the fields and those human beings go home and they have pesticide residues on their clothes. There is it's called para-occupational exposures. Their family members are now being exposed to much higher levels.

There was a study done in the valley in Salinas Valley in California, looking at the families of agricultural workers and their children and neurodevelopmental on status, and they, you know paired children in the valley who are you know in the area where all this agriculture is and the ones outside of the valley in the mountain range that don't have pesticides and they just said drastic figure and you see the side-by-side comparison of these images. It's heartbreaking because the kids are the exact same age and the kids in the valleys can't draw stick figure and the kids outside can so like I. I cannot see any reason to defend the use of pesticides, even if all of the data said there's no individual human health from consuming these foods. We also have to think of the broader implication of who else is being exposed, and we have thousands of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of agricultural workers that are occupationally exposed to these chemicals and have increased rates of all different types of prostate cancer and lung cancer. and skin cancers, and do we ignore them yeah yeah, 100 %?

One of the other arguments that I want to bring to the table that you sometimes hear is if these pesticides and all these chemicals that are sprayed on produce are so harmful. Why is it that we can see that people who consume more produce, even if it's conventional produce our show health benefits versus people who consume less produce? And you know we had some discussions outside of this on this subject? I also just sent you a brand new study that just like in the last few days that gives us fodder for discussion here, but if these chemicals are harmful, why would it be? How would it be possible that you could see health benefits from consuming more produce, because vegetables are good for us and most people don't eat vegetables as I think, that's the reality is that we have you know? Of course, these foods also provide nutrition nutrients that our bodies need absolutely so. I never want people to feel like they're in a position. First of all, between like eating organic or eating, no vegetables, I think, and a lot of critics of the Environmental Working Group say that they're fear-mongering and now people are afraid to eat vegetables. That's definitely not the intention. We want people to eat vegetables and there is also within that population very likely higher risks of other types of illnesses. So maybe, overall they have improved health and you know decreases of disease. We have to look at the subsets of you know: how's their thyroid function how's their hormone function because that might not be classified as a disease, but if they have low-level hormone, dysregulation or gut dysbiosis because they're being exposed to glyphosate, which acts as an antibiotic and the GI system, you know we have, we have to take all of those things into consideration for sure, and then I know that you know you had a really great point that you had made when we were going back and forth on this topic about.

We have to, we have to compare. We have to have enough comparison groups to actually make that data meaningful, because we can always take two points and kind of argue like well. One is better, therefore, the other one it's bad, but we have to put it in relation to what yes add a third group in that says. Okay, great now, let's see if we can say what are the studies of people who eat more fruits and vegetables that are organic and compare how their health markers versus the ones that are eating a lot of fruits and vegetables that are not yeah and it's. It's a very interesting concept of like: can you have a negative within something that is it kind of an in a net positive? Can you still have some aspects? That's negative and there's a couple of examples that I thought of. One was like if you compared a group of people that were sleeping eight hours a night to a group that was sleeping four hours a night. The group who's sleeping eight hours a night, even if they liked had they were sleeping with the TV and all these artificial lights blaring into their eyes. Before that, the group was sleeping eight hours every night is gonna, have health benefits compared if you're, comparing them to sleeping four hours, but that doesn't mean that what they're doing is perfect. If you were to compare them to a third group, that's sleeping the same amount of hours but doesn't have artificial light blaring into their not their eyes at night, suppressing melatonin. Then you would see that that group is actually even more superior and therefore that the artificial light is associated with harm and another example is like if you compared a group that does no exercise to a group that exercises but have terrible forms such that you know. They're gonna get back injuries and tendonitis and stress fractures and bulging discs in their back and all these different things. The on the average across the whole population, the group who's doing exercise – is still gonna have net health benefits compared to the group doing no exercise but they're also going to have increased injuries in all those different ways.

If you compare them to a third group that is doing all the exercise was taught good form, they would perform even better and then you'd realize you'd expose all of the problems of that second group of the people having bad technique and bad yeah. I mean, I think, it's just a weak and not fully thought-out argument. To just pair I mean what do we need three points to make a line. Two points are, you know we need. We need three to have an adequate comparison when we're trying to make comparisons. Like that, and so I think it's you know – yes, of course, eating fruits and vegetables is good for us and it would be better if they were organic. Yes, do you want to speak to that study that I just sent you I'll? Just you know yeah. I mean I just skimmed it to be honest, but if I did yeah I mean it's brand new, it's brand brand-new and it's um and I'm just looking at it now and I apologize it's so dark in here because daylight savings changed and I don't have good lights in this room, so it's basically speaking to the same principle fact yeah.

They actually did a study where they compared people consuming plenty of produce. That's conventional versus plenty of produce, that's organic and they found that the group consuming. So it was 145 145 thousand women and over 24,000 men they followed him for over a decade and they found that eating organic produce correlated with a lower risk of heart disease while eating conventional produce did not even after adjustment for a healthy lifestyle. So it's basically exactly the examples that I just gave of. If you compare them like, if you just compare conventional eating conventional produce versus no produce, it's gonna show that there are benefits to consuming produce. Even if it's conventional if you add in a third group where they're consuming the same amount of produce but organic, that group will be superior and that's, I think it completely changes the takeaway. When we exclude that third group, which I think a lot of people do intentionally because it allows them to make the argument that they want to make without presenting the full data or full, you know an al, I mean we see that a lot for sure. Within different industries that are working really really hard to defend the profits, because you know we also live in an economy where you know they're legally required to produce profit if they're a publicly-traded company, and so we're in this situation, where you know we have giant Multinational companies that are going to every length possible to defend the use of the product that they make and they have everything to lose mm-hmm. So you know we have to take their research and their rebuttals of these arguments with a grain of salt, and I think you know, unfortunately, a lot of people don't have the critical eye to see through some of the research that's coming out.

There was another. I remember where I saw this: it was a paper somewhere that was basically saying that, as you know the vast majority of it wasn't a paper, it was a book, don't remember which one, the vast majority of studies that are coming out of Industry or showing benefit, whereas the vast majority of studies coming out of independent science show harm, and this is not just a pesticides it's to all of these different. You know the P fast chemicals and all of these different types of toxicants, that we're being exposed to yeah, interesting and well said. I think the grain of salt is very appropriate when you're looking at industry-funded studies. One more thing I just want to say, lest we are accused of being food elitists here I want to mention there. There is a real economic concern for some people around this conventional versus organic issue, such that some people are in a financial position where it really makes a meaningful difference to them to have to buy organic or to buy organic versus conventional, and I just want to be clear, I think you agree with me that buying conventional produce is certainly better than no produce and the net benefits over no produce are clear. You should still buy, even if you can't afford organic and if you can't afford organic, just go conventional. That's that certain a much better option than no produce, yeah and in situations like that, I really encourage people to make other changes around their home that maybe aren't costly. Oh, that's many many things are free. Like, open your windows. Take your shoes off when you come in the door on stop buying scented candles and synthetic air fresheners like that, will save you. Money like there are other things that we can do to reduce the overall body burden of environmental chemicals that were exposed to. If we are in a financial situation where we can't spend more money on certain things – and the other thing that I would add to that is you know, Costco is the largest retailer in the United States for organic foods.

So if people are shopping at Costco, which I'll know a lot of families, that you know, struggle financially will go to a store like Costco, because they can get a good deal, go to Costco for your organic foods. And then this is a shout out to everybody else who can afford these foods is. This is what changes the landscape for everyone else, and so you know this is like you know we vote with our dollars. You know for all the ladies out there. Our ladies are the primary spenders in society. We are the primary spenders of the household. We have tremendous power as consumers to create the kind of marketplace that we want, and I think we forget that because we become lazy consumers because you know the computer and the TV are telling us what to buy and we're like. Okay, I'll buy it I'll buy it because the TV told me to. I think that if we become informed on this topic and we double down for the people who can on organic food, we are investing in the types of industries and supporting the types of companies who are doing good work and that does affect everybody. Then we get to have larger organic farms that employ more farmworkers that now don't have to be exposed to pesticides, so there's lots of residual. I hate the expression trickle-down. I think it's kind of ruined from the 80s, but you know there is a tremendous amount of trickle-down to society as a whole, and so, if we have the means, let's do it and the fact that the domain has increased has it caused an explosion of the organic market and has driven prices down as demand has gone up such that there isn't such a huge price gap in many cases, any more and personal care products which I want to talk about a bit. Maybe in brief forum also there's been an explosion of healthy personal care products that are free of a lot of the toxic crap.

So with that in mind, let's, actually cover the personal care stuff, personal care products. What is a concern here and are the chemicals here, maybe we'll start with something kind of basic that maybe not everybody understands are the things that we put on our skin relevant to human health? Like are these substances actually doing anything besides just sitting on our skin yeah? Absolutely so you know, first of all, there's an I've seen this being so splashed around Facebook and the internet for years. Is this meme? That's like everything you put on your skin enters your body in 26 seconds and it's usually somebody who's trying to sell you a non-toxic skincare product, and that is a statement. That's patently not true, so we have to again be mindful of our words and make sure that we're being accurate in what we're saying so that we're not feeding the naysayers, who are like. Oh, I'm, gonna, take that in and run with it. So our skin is a barrier. It does obviously keep out many of the things that we put on it, but a lot of the chemicals that are used in the personal care products that we use do absorb into the skin and some of them do absorb quickly. But there's no universal time frame, there are lots of factors that determine whether or not something's capable of penetrating all the way into the bloodstream. It has to do with a molecule size. What's you know how large or small is the molecule? What's the integrity of the skin, like are you hydrated? Do you have a scratch like there are all of these different factors? Does the product contain ingredients that are known penetration enhancers and their job is to actually decrease the lipid barrier on your skin and increase penetration?

So there are chemicals whose job it is to actually push stuff into the skin. The reason why I think this is so concerning not certainly for all chemicals, but certain chemicals in this in this class of personal care products is that when we absorb something through the skin and when we inhale something, these substances go right into the bloodstream. So they bypass what's called the first-pass metabolism. So when we eat something and it goes through our GI system and then it goes into the liver to be broken down or metabolized, and then that blood circulates through the back through the body when we absorb something it actually bypasses the benefit of getting broken down. By the liver first, so it goes right into the bloodstream straight away and does its thing and then will eventually make its way to the liver to be metabolized. If that's even possible – and you know – and so that's that is concerning to me – is that we are absorbing chemicals that don't have the ability to be broken down. So you know we have that thing to consider when we're slathering body lotions – and you know shampoos and shaving creams on most of the chemical most of the personal care products that we're using are made with synthetic fragrances. Those fragrances contain a chemical called phthalates. Phthalates are a very well established, endocrine disruptor, so they very often have that non-monotonic dose-response. They have health effects at extraordinarily low levels. Anytime. We what's the first thing somebody does when they go to the grocery store and tries a new product. They pop the top and they smell it because we are condensed right. The fragrance is the largest or strongest trigger for memory. It's our olfactory receptor that lives in the oldest most primitive part of our brain.

So, like we love things that smell good right and so product manufacturers know this and they pump these synthetic fragrances into these products. There are entire brands that are nothing but the scent of Irish spring. It's just the scent Herbal Essences shampoo, it's just the smell. That's what they're selling you they're, not selling you on how good it cleans your skin or washes your hair verbal essences. I don't even know if that stuff is for sale anymore because I don't really watch TV or TV commercials, but like in the 80s and 90s. The was the lady with having the orgasm in the shower, because her shampoo smells so good, and everybody remembers that because that's why I actually stocked up on that. Oh, you did yeah to keep my wife satisfied: fair, fair, whatever it takes, man, that's right, so you know we are using dozens and dozens of these personal care products every single day, the Environmental Working Group. This was, I think, in 2000. Maybe eight or nine did a survey. Just a small survey of you know a couple of hundred women and found that they use about an average of twelve personal care products and there are approximately 168 chemicals that they're being exposed to every single day before leaving the bathroom.

Certainly, not all of those chemicals are harmful, but we do have some data on many of them. The parabens, the phthalates, the other types of preservatives in there for products like sunscreens, which are a major issue yeah I was going to say: did you see the recent study that came out on sunscreens and blood absorption? Maybe there was one that received a lot of publicity, I want to say yeah, so the UV filters, the benzo free, knowns and Shakti, often Sally oxidant, ox eight and then there's an oxybenzone as the other one. These are all endocrine disrupters, all under Kunda structures, they're fairly well established and they are ubiquitous so they're. What are bleaching the coral reef – and there are so many associations in the literature linking these UV filters to chronic health issues and even birth defects. There'd a birth defect called think: it's called Hirschsprung's disease where part of you know in an infant we're part of the lower intestine, doesn't form it doesn't close properly, and so the child has like an open intestine and it has to be closed surgically and there's A stream Li strong Association to specifically UV filters that cause that so you know we have to again it's this idea of like if we have an option to choose better, which we do now, because this didn't exist 15 years ago there were so few options. Then, let's make that choice! Ten years ago, when I first started doing this research, I could count the number of clean brands on like my hands, and now I can't keep up because there's so many there are these huge surgeons of consumers that want cleaner products and people that have started creating cleaner Products in response to that it's the fastest-growing sector of the entire beauty industry is natural and organic. That said, there is a tremendous amount of greenwashing in this space because the terms natural and organic are not regulated by any federal agency as it pertains to skincare.

So a lot of company in organic isn't yeah. So the only way that you can see a USDA Organic seal on a personal care product is if they're using USDA certified food-grade ingredients. So you can do that, but there are all kinds of companies that will use the word organic natural. These things don't mean anything, and so a lot of consumers are duped into things in just specifically in the context of personal care, as opposed to food. Yes yeah. So there's no regulation for these terms. Usda is only regulating the USDA Organic seal as it relates to food crops outside of food, their likes, not our purview, and so you know there's even I'm. There was a shampoo brand called organics with an X at the end. Not organic, nothing organic at all in the ingredients but like they branded themselves that way so a consumer who's, maybe trying to do better for herself and her family is gonna, spend the extra two dollars to buy this product that is perceived to be better, but In reality is not better at all they're, like whoa whoa whoa, we never said it was organic. We said nix with an exit organics, it's like cheesy right so, except that with cheese with a Z, you actually have the FDA. That is regulating that literally, so you know, I think, very much it's the Wild West when it comes to what's happening in personal care products, but you know there is a very large and growing body of safer and cleaner products that are not made with synthetic fragrances. They're not made with synthetic compounds. You know, and then again I'll just say play devil's advocate to myself. Is that not all synthetics are harmful? So there's a lot of people in the dermatological fields that are like, oh everybody's freaking, out about natural, but there are certain things like you know as much as I hate to say it there are some types of petroleum byproducts in skin products that are so highly Refined that there is actually no harm for them still don't like to use them, but you know they're. So we want to make sure that we're weighing both sides of all of these issues, but I think that you know we can simply swap out when we run out of shampoo. We can buy a safer product at this point because the market is, you know, there's so much product availability, the cost. Just like you were saying with organic. It'S really not that different. It used to be that there was a big disparity.

It used to be that organic skincare, natural skincare didn't work and it didn't do anything, but the game has completely changed for that yeah. Do you on a very, very practical level? Do you have any specific recommendations on what to watch out for if you want to like to name two or three things that might be on an ingredient list to watch out for or any specific brands that you'd recommend in the space of like women's personal care products? Oh and sunscreen yes yeah, so as it pertains to personal care products, the number one ingredient that I want people to look for is the word fragrance. It's like a catch-all container word. There can be up to 3,000 chemicals that make up the fragrance mixture and then there are other chemicals like phthalates, which is not part of the fragrance mixture, but it stabilizes the fragrance, so it sticks around and it also helps that fragrance. Stick to your skin and your clothes so that you know you can go into the laundry get a laundry closet or towel a linen closet and find you know. Oh, my clothes still smell, downy fresh two weeks after I wash them. So that's phthalates that do that job. So even if the product says it's phthalate-free and it has the word fragrance, I still tell people to ditch it because there are a lot of synthetic musk's that are used in the fragrance mixture that can be sensitizers. They can be allergens, some of them can even be endocrine disruptors, even without phthalates present.

So if you see the word fragrance and it doesn't specify – you know this type of essential oil and that type of plant-based essential oil – it's a no for me. So that's the first word to look for. The second is I really encourage people to be mindful of parabens. Parabens are just a broad class of preservatives, but they show up in our bodies. So most of us have you know some types of methylparaben ethylparaben, propylparaben in our urine. Any word that ends in arab in' is a no. Then we have compounds like SLS. So if you see sodium lauryl, sulfate or worse, sodium Laureth sulfate these. If it's sodium lauryl sulfate, it can actually be a penetration enhancer and an irritant for the skin and then any the sodium Laureth so and that sometimes in toothpaste as well. Yes, absolutely it's in toothpaste and then, of course, we can add triclosan, which is still found in some types of personal care products that one was banned right. No, it was only partially banned, so it was only banned from hand, soaps and hand sanitizers the FDA tasked the companies using it to prove that it was actually better than soap and water and they couldn't do it. So the FDA said you can't use it. Then because it doesn't actually have any benefit, and there is some data that suggests s — risk so tracklist it yeah triclosan is a thyroid suppressant. Hmm, it's an endocrine-disrupting chemical that goes after the thyroid. So no thank you and I'm like what else any ingredient that ends in ETH so like sodium, Laureth, s'ti RF. It's a long list of chemicals that end in that.

But that is an indication that the chemical or the ingredient has undergone a process called a Thaksin and ethoxylates a by-product. That is carcinogenic and companies can filter it out, but they don't even bother because they don't care because they think a small amount is fine. So little small amount of carcinogens, fine for you, so don't like those ingredients and then, as for sunscreen, you basically want to throw everything out. That is not zinc oxide, like everything else. Is it no it's easier to have the yes list than a no list. You know there are lots of different brands. My favorite for women's skincare is Ann Marie Gianni. I think you got you to know the Jionni's. I use their stuff every single day. I love their skincare yeah. I have to say my wife has tried several different, high-quality natural, organic brands and, and she raves about Ann Marie Gianni, their stuff is so hyper. Clean, they're like obsessive about the sourcing and the production which even a lot of green companies are not. People can also look for third-party certifications. There's a great organization called made safe, which and Ann Marie skincare stuff is certified, made safe and made safe, we'll look at they look beyond the ingredient label, so sometimes there are ingredients that companies don't have to disclose and may safe. Basically, it hires an NDA of files, an NDA with every company. That's like, I want to see everything even and then we'll decide whether or not we want to give you our certification. So they don't mince any words, and so, if we can, you can people can go to the made safe website and just look up products that are certified and those are gonna be ones that are like the best of the best. I try to give people like this good, better best option the same thing with the organic conversation like best would be beating eating organic, but better, like it's still better than not eating organic to just eat vegetables, yeah, good, better best, and so that exists in the Skincare realm as well, I have a resource page on my website where I usually send people or a curate. I curate like here are the products that I personally like and use that I vetted, but there are all kinds of online retailers like the detox market and pho lane and credo beauty that really curate clean products for consumers for like a one-stop-shop. So I just like to say none of these things existed. Even you know six-seven years ago, so it's really awesome to see the marketplace just exploding with options for people yeah beautiful. I want to mention a couple of things, so one is we're way over time. I want to be respectful of your time. This has also been awesome. I, what I want to do is actually have you on a second time, yeah, and I know that there's so much more knowledge and wisdom that you have to share and we haven't even touched like water and waters, one of my favorite ones or air pollution, and There's a whole bunch of other topics we could touch on so I know we have lots more content that we can address. I think there's more than adequate content for part two and part three, so I would love to do that.

This has been epic. The other thing I want to mention everybody listening is: if you go to the energy blueprint com forward, the slash will put it at will, put it at your name, Laura Adler. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with my audience. I really appreciate it and I will reach out to you for part two awesome. Well, thank you for having me yeah.