It’s something like teaspoon of cinnamon daily for relatively short period or table spoon as single dose. Yes we might know phalates and many others are poisonous, but how poisonous? From school I remember recommended daily intake of mercury was something like 1% what is known to be harmful. Sometimes we play it so save we forget the scale. Here people are advised not to eat herring too often because of mercury while studies have shown that fisherman who eat them over recommended live longer. Compared to previous generations, poisons we use are a lot less poisonous. Not saying they need to be used, but many things in our lives rely on stuff that aren’t good for us or the enviroment. Question is what is alternative in glopal scale? Not talking only about phalates, but in general. It’s probably also poisonous, but maybe less so. We will only know decades later. Personally I try to be as minimalistic as possible as I think it’s not what we use but how much.
Yeah, those are huge quantities!
Did you read the papers? Here’s an extract from ‘Critical Review on the Presence of Phthalates in Food and Evidence of Their Biological Impact’:
It has been estimated that, in normal life, humans are exposed to ≥1.0 g/day of phthalates. As PAEs are quickly metabolized and excreted, the assessment of these compounds in urine is considered appropriate. Noteworthy, children and adults respond in a different manner to PAEs exposure, as a consequence of children’s hand-to-mouth habit that would easily make them ingest DEHP [40,41].
Another extract from the same paper:
3.1. Phthalates and Endocrine Toxicity
The decline in human fertility over the past decades, putatively associated with environmental causes, has aroused worldwide attention to this issue. Subfertility represents a health and social issue affecting an increased number of individuals, 25–30% of which are males. Interestingly, in a study carried out by Minguez-Alarcon et al., they analyzed, in a population of American males, the correlation between PAEs exposure and the decline of sperm concentration and count of 37% and 42%, respectively, in a specific temporal range (2000–2017) [42]. Many studies reported the role of PAEs in the reproductive toxicity, through the modulation of testicular Leyding and Sertoli cell functions, which are responsible for spermatogenesis, steroidogenesis, and structural/metabolic support of developing germ cells; thus, leading to reproductive failure [43–45]. PAEs are considered as endocrine disruptors, being able to negatively modulate hormonal functions and pathways [46,47]; thus, interfering with estrogens and thyroid hormones [48,49]. Indeed, DEHP/MEHP and DBP/BBP/mono-n-butyl phthalate (MBP) can interact with estrogen receptor-1 (ESR1) in humans [50]. Moreover, these metabolites are able to bind to progesterone receptor (PR); thus, competing with endogenous steroid hormones [50]. In males, PAEs can be responsible of the so-called “phthalate syndrome” or “testicular dysgenesis syndrome”, accounting for cryptorchidism hypospadias [44], reduced anogenital distance, altered seminal parameters, infertility [46], and testicular cancer [51]. The molecular mechanism underlying the “phthalate syndrome” might be referred as the ability of these compounds to interact with the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis (HPG axis) and to take part in signaling pathways involved in steroid homeostasis and biosynthesis [52]. The mentioned syndrome may also occur upon functional impairment of Sertoli, resulting in the inhibition of meiosis, spermiogenesis, and testosterone production by Leydig cells mediated, among others, by oxidative stress [53] and insulin-like growth factor 3(Igf-3) suppression [54]. In particular, it has been shown that cell exposure to MEHP (200 μM for 24 h) triggered an oxidative stress response in rat prepubertal Sertoli cell cultures by increasing lipoperoxides and Glutathione S-Transferases activity while decreasing glutathione levels, and by disrupting adherent cell junction proteins (i.e., N-Cadherin, occluding, ZO-1, and catenin) [53]. Accordingly, it is plausible that DEHP, at doses of 500 mg/kg or more, causes atrophy of seminiferous tubules and decreased ATP-dependent sperm motility, inhibiting DNA replication, decreasing SIRT1, and inducing ROS-mediated apoptotic cell death [55]. ROS overproduction is considered a major player in sperm dysfunction, as assessed by the significant increase in malondialdehyde (MDA) formation (derived from lipid peroxidation and a marker of oxidative stress) in the testis following DBP treatment in male rats [56]. Noteworthy, ROS are thought to disrupt plasma membranes of the sperms that are rich of highly sensitive polyunsaturated fatty acid [57], to decrease testosterone levels and to elicit apoptosis of spermatogenic cells and disruption of their mitochondrial membranes; thus, impairing sperm quality [58]. Furthermore, they observed a DEHP-elicited phenotypic testicular alteration in vivo [59]. Another PAE metabolite, namely DBP, has been demonstrated to induce testicular toxicity in rats [56]. Indeed, oral treatment with increasing doses of DBP (0, 200, 400, or 600 mg/kg/day for 15 consecutive days) in male rats caused a decrease in sperm count in the epididymis, amount of sperm in the testes, likely due to a decrease in serum levels of follicle-stimulating hormone as well as levels of testosterone and activity of testicular lactate dehydrogenase activity, the latter being a crucial enzyme for Sertoli cells to produce ATP necessary for spermatozoa motility and to prevent apoptosis of testicular germ cells. A dysfunction of testicular activity is likely due to PAEs-mediated decrease in levels of serum testosterone, as well as other key regulators of sperm production, namely, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and lactate dehydrogenase (LH). A recent work reported a positive correlation between MEHP and FSH/LH [60]. In a recent study, the role of PAEs as modulator of sperm epigenetic modification has been investigated [61,62]. Specifically, low-doses of PAEs (MMP, mono-ethyl phthalate (MEP), MBP, monobenzyl phthalate (MBzP), MEHP, and MEOHP in the range from 0.85–20.53 μg/g), measured in urinary samples of selected male participants, were analyzed by multiple linear regression models to assess the impact of these compounds on semen quality parameters. Interestingly, they found that while several PAEs correlated with sperm motility, the latter was negatively regulated by DNA hypermethylation. It is well known that DNA hypomethylation plays a crucial role in spermatogenesis by modulating the expression of developmental genes and it is positively associated with higher quality of sperm [63]. On the contrary, DNA hypermethylation may cause oligoasthenoteratozoospermia due to abnormal chromatin/DNA integrity [64]. Another epigenetic mechanism by which PAEs would exert their endocrine disruption includes abnormal hypomethylation of paternally imprinted H19 gene and hypermethylation of maternally imprinted LIT1 gene [65]. A plausible explanation may rely in the PAEs-mediated oxidative stress that would prevent the interaction of methyl CpG-binding proteins to the CpGs; thus. leading to DNA demethylation [66]. It has been reported that direct or indirect maternal exposure to DEHP decreases in utero expression of mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) in rat Leydig cells [67] as well as in the expression of fetal testicular mRNA levels of 17α-hydroxylase and cytochrome P450 17A1, all accounting for reduced testosterone levels in adult rats [68]. However, in a study carried out in Germany by Herr et al., the increased exposure to DEHP metabolites (40.56 μg/L) was not correlated to altered semen profile [69]. In women, it is possible to detect phthalates from different biological matrices [70,71]. Furthermore, unconjugated PAEs, namely DEHP, DEP, DBP, BBP, MEHP, MEHHP, MEP, MBP, and MBzP, are also able to cross the placental barrier; thus, affecting post/pre-natal development [72]. Of note, exposure to phthalates, mainly monoesters, correlates with reduced gestational age of fetus [73], follicular atresia [74], endometriosis [75], infertility [76], and pubertal development [77] increased birth loss [19], reduced yield of oocytes [78]. Maternal exposure to DEHP (0, 50, or 200 mg/kg) during pregnancy caused a fetal growth restriction and lowered placental weight in a gender-independent manner [79]. The inhibition of placental cells’ proliferation likely involves the MEHP-mediated decrease of progesterone receptor level, which in turn would cause the down-regulation of Cyclin D1 and induce progesterone synthesis [80]. These compounds have been demonstrated to cross the human placenta and reach the umbilical cord [81] and the amniotic fluid [82]. The altered placental development might be due to a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)γ-mediated disruption in placental lipid metabolism, accounting for modified glycerolipids and glycerophospholipids levels, with a marked accumulation of triacylglycerols [83]. Furthermore, the presence of DEHP was also detected in maternal milk; thus, exposing newborns to these contaminants during breast feeding [84]. In mice, DEHP administration between the weaning period and maturity has been shown to disrupt ovarian function and decrease the expression of follicular development factors (i.e., C-KIT, KITL, GDF9, and ATM), as well as ovarian microRNAs (miR-17-5p, let-7b, miR-181a, and miR-151) that are responsible for inhibition of follicular granulosa cell proliferation and for bax/bcl2-mediated apoptosis [32]. The effect of phthalates on women reproductive system likely relies on MEHP formation [85]. Importantly, PAEs can mimic hormone activity through the binding to a number of human receptors. They bind to hERα,β, thus eliciting either estrogenic or anti-estrogenic effects [86]. DEHP would be able to decrease expression of the Arom gene and, consequently, E2 levels in vitro; thus, affecting follicle growth [87]. Moreover, they form a complex with human peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α, β or γ subtypes (PPARs) and, in turn, interact with follicle stimulating hormones. This indirect effect would provoke estradiol inhibition and suppression of aromatase as a consequence of cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) decrease in granulosa cells [88]. Finally, they are able to regulate aryl hydro-carbon receptor (AhR) as well as the activity of metabolic enzymes involved in ER metabolism [89]. PAE have been also taken into consideration as risk factors for thyroid endocrine system disruption [90]. Furthermore, as thyroid system is strongly connected to the reproductive one, an association between urinary concentrations of PAEs and thyroid hormones has been investigated in a cross-sectional study [44]. The study outlined the inverse relationship between higher doses of MEP or MEHP and lower serum free thyroxine (FT4) or serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), respectively.
There’s loads more info in that paper and the others, and it’s better formatted there so I think your question is best answered by reading the papers. But there’s a taste of it anyway! I would conclude, fairly toxic!!!
No dig plastic-free multispecies organic farming is a highly productive and highly profitable alternative. It uses far less land; it builds soil rather than eroding it; it doesn’t rely on poisons toxic to humans and the environment; it tastes much better; and it’s far far better for the immediate and surrounding biodiversity. And we don’t need to wait decades to find out if that is toxic, wouldn’t you agree?
If most agriculture on the planet was converted to that system, we would all be far better off, and we might even stand a chance of eventually bringing an end to the current mass extinction we have caused, which is mostly caused by farming. People don’t seem to talk much about farming and the climate crisis, focusing instead on things like plastic recycling, which is in fact a con created by the plastic industry to make people feel better about paying them to destroy the planet. But farming is the main culprit, so far as I understand. So, that is my proposed solution.
But it may be worth bearing in mind that I did not make this post in order to change the global farming system, despite how much I would want that to happen. I posted it to inform the individuals here, so they are better equipped to make their own choices. Hopefully it is helpful!
I don’t think it’s a big amount. Atleast here cinnamon is used quite often and having a teaspoon or more with riceporridge isn’t uncommon. Maybe not often daily, but not because people would know they could get overdose. I did understand there are studies that show harms of phalates, but it doesn’t take into account benefits. Most places accumulated heat always increases yield. It’s easy to make over optimistic estimations, but if alternative was that easy we wouldn’t have the problem in the first place. Change you propose would need a lot bigger proportion of workforce in agriculture and still cooler areas would have yields reduced. More realistic and faster would be to offer something to replace oil based plastic, that maybe isn’t non toxic, but is less toxic anyway. It’s really hard to overstate the benefits plastic mulches have given in many areas and once you see the benefits it’s hard to give them up.
This is an important and challenging discussion. I think we should learn what the ideal is, and then work gradually towards getting closer to that. Any step closer is better, and it’s okay to go slowly and do things in small ways.
I want food production in winter more than I want to have phthalate-free food (especially given that the alternative, grocery store food, may have phthalates, too). But I can keep my eye out for microclimates on my land that are warmer in winter, and individuals of each species that need less warmth to produce food in winter, to gain independence from external inputs.
Since that approach will save me both money and time anyway, and it’s more sustainable in a long-term emergency on top of that, I call that a win-win-win!
Well, here’s a fascinating and creative idea for a way to build a greenhouse using glass, without having to buy anything:
I’m thinking if you put those jars upright, filled them with water, and then screwed the lids on, it might make an even more effective greenhouse. Then the walls would automatically have all that excellent extra insulation and temperature regulation that a bunch of plastic milk jugs filled with water can give.
Looks like that will loose a lot of the light. And it seems it’s full of holes, no? I suppose if the aim is to block out some of the light, and you actually want a lot of ventilation, maybe it’s a good idea. But you still have to source all those many many jars. Here I think it’s actually easier to find free windows that free jars on that scale. And windows give far better light transmission, and aren’t full of holes. So for cloudy UK, I would sooner recommend windows.
Yeah, that makes sense. I think the person who came up with the idea used gravel between the jars, so there weren’t holes, but you’re right that that would block out a lot of the sunlight. I didn’t think about that, even though it would be an obvious problem.
Yes and even if you left the holes open, there would be significant light loss just because of the glass jars. Some people use something similar to that to make fancy windows for dappled light in things like earth ships.
Ahhh, makes sense. Yeah, dim light in a greenhouse sorta defeats the whole point. Or at least one of the main points. I want warmth and light for my plants in it.
Hey, I just saw someone using burlap to cover weeds and kill them in a YouTube video. I know it’s a natural fiber, and it wouldn’t break down as quickly as cardboard. Would burlap work as a replacement for tarps?
I’m no expert but I wouldn’t expect it to block out all light and I’d expect to see weeds eventually growing through it. Which could get very messy and difficult to take up maybe? If resources were not an issue, I’d maybe consider getting 2 layers of it, and maybe mixing beeswax (waterproof) with crushed charcoal (light absorption) and maybe think about whether some kind of solvent might be necessary (I’d look into natural solvents like turpentine and see what might have no toxicity issues for long term soil health?) - then dip the double layered fabric (which might have a few stitches to keep them together) in the mix, to create a black waterproof double layered fabric that would therefore block out a lot more light, would last way longer due to being relatively waterproof, and would kill off the things underneath way better due to blocking both light and water. It would also work better if on a slight incline otherwise there may be some level of water penetration. But anyway that’s what occurs to me.
Although I would much prefer to just lay down 1 or 2 layers of cardboard, and put 12cm of compost over it, maybe in Autumn or early Winter if possible, as a start for making a no dig system. Then every year add 2cm of compost to it. I hear this method is awesome for stopping weeds and requires only very minimal weeding even from the start and continues as a very low maintenance and very healthy system - no need for any tarps, just ever-increasing soil health.
Even with a perfect tarp, whilst it might kill weeds, I would expect it to tend in the opposite direction of a healthy biodiverse well aerated endophyte rich organic matter rich continually improving soil system. I would guess that a tarp might just come in handy for emergencies, like if someone really needed to kill off the life in an area but didn’t have time to do it properly, and needed to just quickly cover it?
I lined four air-prune boxes that I made to grow trees from seed and the burlap was largely gone after one year. (That’s in a way more destructive position than lying atop a bed, but it’s the only experience I have.)
I also just read that Frank Loyd Wright used hemp canvas as awnings that lasted 50 years where cotton replacements only last 5-10. I don’t know if hemp canvas is available, but it might be worth having.
That does sound promising. It’s very hopeful to hear about plastic alternatives that already exist!
On the plastic topic…
I am less concerned about toxicity issues, and more concerned that farmers will find themselves unable to grow food if plastic suddenly becomes unavailable. Same goes for herbicides and pesticides. And hoses and pumps for convenient irrigation. Pretty much all of this stuff is now manufactured far away in places like China.
As a kid I loved reading really old horticulture books from before the world wars. Without the convenience of lightweight plastic pots, machine ground composted mulch potting soils, flexible hoses for irrigation, every single step of growing plants under controlled conditions was vastly more difficult than we currently realise. I’m often haunted by the thought of all those shiploads of rare tropical plants in coal heated hothouses all being destroyed during the wars that followed.
Even mulch as we often use it today is a really anomalous habit. If the bulk organic material isn’t gathered, processed and transported by machines how many people would be willing to do all that work by hand? Well meaning permaculture instructors often teach mulching to people in the developing world and the locals pretty uniformly abandon it once the wide teacher departs. Even moreso for paper and cardboard- something that was once a rare and precious product is now a torrent of waste that can be diverted, but how much longer will it be available? What will people do when it isn’t available?
This is why I am determined to rediscover techniques that proved viable before industrialisation. Weeds are not our enemies exactly. I harness my local weed population as a form of self sowing green manure, which I manage with well timed hoeing (leaving the better behaved species long enough to sow again). I believe Joseph Lofthouse uses a similar approach of periodic hoeing with great results. With good timing and proper tools and techniques it isn’t the back breaking torture people often imagine. The book “Gardening when it Counts” by Steve Solomon is a decent intro to preindustrial farming methods.
Yeah and with the US intent on making a new war with China, perhaps that will become an issue for you guys over there. So, maybe even more of a reason to switch to non-toxic sustainable methods now?
Have you heard of Richard Perkins? He’s not totally plastic free - he does use some movable mini tunnels but his method is not dependent on that. His system is extremely efficient and he trains people to make no-dig market gardens that are profitable in their first year. I recommend watching some of his videos. Here’s an example:
It seems to me that his natural method is way more profitable and way less work and space for more income than mainstream toxic agriculture methods.
I think there are some modern compost innovations that can maybe be very good and though take some time, perhaps require overall quite little work. I know the idea of landrace gardening here can involve not bothering with compost. But, perhaps it can be good to use, including for reducing the need to water, which addresses your flexible hose issue also.
Here’s a French method for composting wood chip, from Jean Pain:
And here’s the Johnson-Su method of making compost that should be extremely significant for endophytes:
Both of those systems are pretty low input with awesome results, it seems.
Here’s a video on the construction of a Johnson-Su bioreactor - it’s not plastic free but could be adapted to be so.
There was a cool university page on research into that, including some great photos of various farms where they applied dilute water from soaking the results of the reactor onto crops, with controls for comparison. I made a post about it, maybe on the old forum - I searched now but can’t find it. I forget the details but it took a tiny amount of this compost to inoculate a large area of land.
Jean Pain’s method does entail using a machine (of his on design so far as I remember) to make wood chips of even size. But we’re not saying abandon all machines. We don’t need to be fossil fuel dependent to make and use machines.
I guess what I’m saying is that going back to how farming was done by white people before plastics, is not the only solution, and likely not at all the best solution either. We have learned a lot since then, plus some indigenous methods of non-white cultures are applicable depending on our location and often have a lot of value too, either by themselves or integrated with more recent learning. And while most of the ‘learning’ has been learning how to destroy the planet, actually a lot of learning has also been really good, and sustainable - restorative even.
This is why I recommend people like Richard Perkins. His system makes money in the first year. That’s a really good sign. Mike Hoag is another person I have a lot of respect for - he’s a permaculturalist in the US who has a tonne of criticism for a whole lot of permaculturalists. His growing is also profitable, and low input, and he focuses a lot on that. Here’s a link to his work:
And aside from making sure you grow your own mulch, there are also living mulches to consider. I think there’s even a video on that in the course here.
I would think now it’s popular as a way to start no dig systems, because it’s cheap. What occurs to my mind in response to your question is
- So people should do it now, whilst it’s available!
- In the future if cardboard doesn’t fit the equation, we can think of other ways. I don’t think that’s a big deal. And just thinking aloud - timber is not likely to stop being cut any time soon, and saw mills always have waste. So maybe just deeper wood chip or decomposed (e.g. using either of the above methods) wood chip could solve the issue. But I personally think the point that we can change now already, is more significant.
Yeah for sure, that sounds good too. We don’t have to ignore the new (like the various people’s work I mentioned above), nor the good aspects of the old. Lots of value in both, for sure. And finding good uses for so-called ‘weeds’ sounds good too.
I think you’d probably love Mike Hoag’s work too. His growing is extremely species-diverse, and he has cool ways of using certain species to diminish or eliminate issues of the ‘weed’ concept. In case anyone prefers videos over books, here’s his YouTube page: