Skip to main content

Hazardous Pesticides found in Chinese Herbal Remidies Sold in UK, Europe and North America

A major scientific investigation by Greenpeace has revealed that traditional Chinese herbal products available in the UK are laced with a toxic cocktail of pesticide residues, many of them exceeding levels considered safe by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

In total, 36 samples of herbal products imported from China were collected, including chrysanthemum, wolfberry, honeysuckle, dried lily bulb, san qi, Chinese date, and rosebud. These products are popular amongst health-conscious consumers and Asian communities, and are purchased for medicinal use.

However, the independent analysis found that a majority of the samples contained a cocktail of pesticides, some of them extremely dangerous:

• 32 out of the 36 samples collected contained three or more kinds of pesticides.

• 17 out of 36 samples showed residues of pesticides classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as highly or extremely hazardous.

• 26 out of 29 European samples showed pesticide residues in quantities exceeding what European authorities consider the maximum safe level (MRLs).

The test results in the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands show that consumers are being exposed to pesticides classified as highly hazardous by the World Health Organisation. Out of the 36 samples tested, 32 samples contained three or more pesticides.

Commenting on the findings Dr Doug Parr Chief Scientist at Greenpeace UK said:

“The toxic pesticides found in these products pose a real health risk to consumers. People who use these products do so hoping to ease medical conditions and improve their health – they will be shocked to learn that along with natural herbs they have been taking they are exposing themselves to a synthetic cocktail of potentially dangerous pesticides.

The UK government and the EU must improve their testing regime for products imported from China as a matter of urgency so that users of these remedies know that they are safe.”

Research has shown that long-term exposure to pesticide residues in food can cause the toxic chemicals to accumulate inside the body. Chronic pesticide poisoning may lead to health impacts including hormone disruption and reproductive abnormalities.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As