Eddie's Blog List

• “Gender-affirming care” is the latest buzz phrase being used to support the use of drugs and surgery to alter gender

• During puberty, the gender-affirming care may include the use of puberty blockers, which are hormones that pause pubertal development

• Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHas) are a key part of this treatment, with Lupron (leuprolide acetate) being one of the most well-known

• The FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System has at least 76,221 Lupron injury reports, of which 41,895 were severe and 11,917 were fatal

• Lupron may cause long-term damage to female menstrual cycles, hormonal issues, sexual dysfunction, including impotence, cognitive dysfunction, IQ loss in children and psychiatric conditions, along with heart problems, severe arthritis, gastrointestinal disorders and immune suppression

“Gender-affirming care” is the latest buzz phrase being used to support the use of drugs and surgery to alter gender. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), gender-affirming care “is a supportive form of healthcare” that consists of medical, surgical, mental health and non-medical services for transgender and nonbinary people.

During puberty, the gender-affirming care may include the use of puberty blockers, which are hormones that pause pubertal development.¹ Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHas) are a key part of this treatment, with Lupron (leuprolide acetate) being one of the most well-known.

Many who take the drugs, however, aren’t aware of their significant dangers or, as A Midwestern Doctor put it, “the scandalous 40 year saga that has allowed them to be unjustifiably used for a wide range of medical conditions.”2

GnRHas are a class of medications that act by initially increasing and then subsequently decreasing the secretion of gonadotropins — hormones that stimulate the gonads, meaning, in males, the testes, and in females, the ovaries. This leads to a decrease in testosterone levels in males and estrogen levels in females. Midwestern Doctor explains:3

“There are a variety of ways you can block the production of hormones in the body. Since the signal to produce sex hormones (e.g., estrogen and testosterone) begins in the brain, cutting that signal off mostly eliminates the body’s production of hormones.

The most powerful hormonal blockers, the GnRH agonists, work by overstimulating the brain’s GnRH receptors so that they become ‘burned out’ and no longer respond to the natural release of GnRH in the body, thereby short-circuiting the body’s production of sex hormones (which in many cases is a permanent short-c).”

Lupron increases the release of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) from the pituitary gland, which leads to a temporary surge in sex hormones — testosterone in males and estrogen in females.

However, continuous administration of Lupron then leads to a downregulation of LH and FSH levels, which significantly reduces the production of sex hormones by the gonads. This reduction in sex hormones effectively pauses the progression of puberty, preventing the development of secondary sexual characteristics, such as deepening of the voice and growth of facial and body hair in men and the development of breasts in women.

The use of GnRH agonists in transgender youth is said to provide a temporary halt to puberty that can be reversed when the medication is discontinued. HHS is among those that describe puberty blockers as “reversible.”4 Yet, there are many unanswered questions about how these drugs change human development, as nearly all of those who take them go on to use cross-sex hormones. According to a report by Britain’s National Health Service:5 6

“The most difficult question is whether puberty blockers do indeed provide valuable time for children and young people to consider their options, or whether they effectively ‘lock in’ children and young people to a treatment pathway, which culminates in progression to feminizing/masculinizing hormones by impeding the usual process of sexual orientation and gender identity development.

Data from both the Netherlands and the study conducted by GIDS [Gender Identity Development Service] demonstrated that almost all children and young people who are put on puberty blockers go on to sex hormone treatment (96.5% and 98% respectively). The reasons for this need to be better understood.”

Meanwhile, there’s no evidence that the use of puberty blockers is safe for youth, while permanent physical harm may result. For starters, the American College of Pediatricians explains:

“Temporary use of Lupron has … been associated with and may be the cause of many serious permanent side effects including osteoporosis, mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment and, when combined with cross-sex hormones, sterility.”

Despite its long list of significant side effects, Lupron is prescribed for a wide range of off-label uses. Initially approved for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer, it transitioned to being used for all prostate cancers and is not also approved to treat advanced breast cancer, endometriosis and uterine fibroids in women and to treat early puberty in children. In the case of advanced prostate cancer treatment, Midwestern Doctor noted:7

“[I]n addition to Lupron offering a very small survival benefit, a strong case can be made that since it is frequently observed to causes a variety of severe complications (e.g., a large increase in fatal heart attacks or diabetes), its reduction in the prostate cancer death rate is actually an artifact of it killing the patients before a slow growing prostate cancer would.

This perspective for example was shared by the Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer of the American Cancer Society.”

Lupron is also used for a variety of off-label uses, including gynecological problems, in-vitro fertilization and egg donation, chemical castration for sex offenders, increasing height in children and blocking puberty in transgendered youth.8

Midwestern Doctor points out that Lupron succeeded in becoming such a widely used drug despite its high risks due to “one of the most overt acts of physician bribery I’ve seen in American medicine.” Specifically:9

“Since Lupron initially did not sell well, Lupron’s manufacturer took advantage of the existing ‘standard,’ which allows chemotherapy drugs to be sold for a very high price and be ‘forgiven’ for their extreme toxicity.

This was done by reformulating Lupron into a long-acting monthly shot urologists could directly administer to their (prostate cancer) patients and hence directly profit from marking up when they resold it (e.g., Medicare paid $1,200 per shot — or roughly $2,400 in today’s dollars, and in many cases urologists charged far more, all of which allowed many urologists to make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year administering the shots).

To further sweeten the deal, Lupron’s manufacturer frequently bribed urologists and gave them free Lupron samples they ‘resold.’ This was illegal — and eventually resulted in an $875 million fine … but no pharmaceutical executives going to prison.

Because Lupron was immensely profitable, more and more urologists jumped on it, and by the late 1990s Lupron treatments were costing almost a billion dollars per year and accounted for 40 percent of all Medicare payments to many urology practices in the late 1990s …

This in turn led to a rapid proliferation of new off-label ‘uses’ for the drug … Remarkably, despite the fact Lupron has been on the market for decades, it is still extremely expensive. Lupron hence is a very lucrative drug.”

In 2017, a Kaiser Foundation article reported that more than 10,000 adverse event reports had been filed with the FDA by women who’d taken Lupron, in many cases a decade or more prior.10 Some of the women took Lupron as children to grow taller or stop early puberty.

Then, in their 20s, a range of debilitating health issues resulted, ranging from brittle bones and damaged joints to chronic pain, degenerative disc disease, mood swings and headaches. Seizures, depression and anxiety were also reported. Lupron’s prescribing information lists a number of significant warnings and precautions, including:11

• Increase in bone pain

• Ureteral obstruction

• Spinal cord compression, which may contribute to paralysis with or without fatal complications

• Hyperglycemia and diabetes

• Increased risk of heart attack, sudden cardiac death and stroke in men

• Convulsions

It further states, “In postmarketing experience, mood swings, depression, rare reports of suicidal ideation and attempt, rare reports of pituitary apoplexy [sudden bleeding into or impaired blood supply of the pituitary gland], and rare reports of serious drug-induced liver injury have been reported.”12

The FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System now has at least 76,221 Lupron injury reports, of which 41,895 were severe and 11,917 were fatal, according to Midwestern Doctor.13 Among the most common side effects are rapid bone loss, including jaw issues and teeth cracking apart, to the point that some women need dentures in their 30s.

Long-term damage to female menstrual cycles, hormonal issues, sexual dysfunction, including impotence, cognitive dysfunction, IQ loss in children and psychiatric conditions are also commonly reported, along with heart problems, severe arthritis, gastrointestinal disorders and immune suppression.14 Midwestern Doctor reports:15

“Generally speaking, Lupron (like the COVID vaccines) causes the body to age prematurely — which in the case of Lupron provides an important insight on the importance of hormones as these victims provide a unique insight into what happens as the body loses those essential messengers (something which also occurs with age).

This why in addition to profound bone loss, Lupron also frequently causes other degenerative processes like hair loss, vaginal atrophy, receding gums, and declining vision.

For each of those symptoms (and many others), I’ve read countless testimonials describing the anguish of having their body rapidly age in front of their eyes and the general despair that accompanies decades of suffering with these ailments and the fact there is no one who will help them.”

Leaked emails from doctors who belong to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) also show that gender-affirming health care is not black and white. WPATH has influenced gender-affirming treatment guidelines adopted by England’s National Health Service, but according to Michael Shellenberger, a U.S. journalist who accessed the files, “what is called ‘gender medicine’ is neither science nor medicine.”16 One doctor wrote:17

“I have one transition friend/colleague who, after about eight to 10 years of [testosterone] developed hepatocarcinoma [a form of liver cancer] … To the best of my knowledge, it was linked to his hormone treatment … it was so advanced that he opted for palliative care and died a couple of months later.”

Another, a child psychologist, said children don’t understand the ramifications of the hormone treatment and surgeries, stating:18

“[It is] out of their developmental range to understand the extent to which some of these medical interventions are impacting them. They’ll say they understand, but then they’ll say something else that makes you think, oh, they didn’t really understand that they are going to have facial hair.”

Midwestern Doctor also reviewed the leaks to see what WPATH members actually know about Lupron and other puberty blockers, stating:19

“From reviewing all of it, I learned that much like each other group which has promoted the off-label usage of Lupron, WPATH was:

• Not entirely sure what the long-term consequences of this push for those drugs was and in essence, much of what they were doing was a large experiment.

• Recognized that a variety of significant side effects would occur in children who took the blockers (e.g., some would permanently lose their libido or the ability to have an orgasm and many children would lose the necessary emotional developmental process that occurs during puberty).

• Despite claiming otherwise, they knew the effects of Lupron were often not reversible.

• Recognized that the children they were giving the blockers to were too young to fully comprehend the dangers of these drugs but nonetheless were seeking to initiate their use as early as possible.”

Dr. Rachel Levine, HHS assistant secretary for health, has widely stated that “gender-affirming care is medically necessary, safe, and effective for trans and non-binary youth.”20 Nonprofit watchdog Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records of scientific evidence to support gender-affirming care.

In response to the FOIA, HHS gave only one document totaling two pages in length — a brochure posted on its website, titled, “Gender-Affirming Care and Young People.”21 In a complaint obtained by The Daily Wire, PPT wrote to the HHS Inspector General, calling for an investigation into Levine’s statements — and whether they violate HHS’ scientific integrity policies.22

Describing the FOIA submission as “essentially a piece of marketing material with cherry-picked data and agenda-driven assertions,” the complaint to HHS states:23

“This is the opposite of science and evidence-based policymaking and flies in the face of the agency’s pledge of ‘adherence to professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities.'”

Meanwhile, in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece, investigative journalist Gerald Posner called gender-affirming care “a human experiment on children and teens, the most vulnerable patients,” adding:24

“Ignoring the long-term dangers posed by unrestricted off-label dispensing of powerful puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, combined with the large overdiagnosis of minors as gender dysphoric, borders on child abuse.”

To find out more, the video Trans Horror: The Unspoken Truth dives into the “unspoken reality of transgender sexual reassignment surgery and all of the pain, regret and horrors it entails.”25 You can also learn about how to protect your children from transgender ideology in my interview with Dr. Miriam Grossman, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and board-certified medical doctor.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}” data-component-name=”ButtonCreateButton”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

• Human fertility is rapidly declining, and recent studies suggest pesticide exposure via conventional food may be a significant contributor to this disturbing trend, seen in both women and men

• Compared to women with the lowest pesticide exposure, women with the highest exposure had an 18% lower IVF success rate. They were also 26% less likely to have a live birth if they did become pregnant

• Modeling suggests exchanging a single serving of high-pesticide produce per day for one with low pesticide load may increase the odds of pregnancy by 79%, and the odds of having a live birth by 88%

• Research also shows sperm concentration and quality has dramatically declined in recent decades, and the evidence suggests endocrine disrupting chemicals, which includes pesticides, are largely to blame

• Washing your produce will help remove surface pesticide residues. According to published research, the most effective cleaning method, by far, is to wash your produce using a mixture of tap water and baking soda

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published November 15, 2017.

Human fertility is declining, and studies suggested conventional food may be a significant contributor to this disturbing trend, seen in both men and women. Pesticides have repeatedly been implicated in worsening fertility, and one study further supported this hypothesis.

The study,1 2 published in JAMA Internal Medicine, evaluated the influence of factors known to affect reproduction on the reproductive success of 325 women between the ages of 18 and 45 (mean age 35), who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF). As reported by Time,3 “The women in the study filled out detailed questionnaires about their diet, along with other factors that can affect IVF outcomes, like their age, weight and history of pregnancy and live births.”

Using a U.S. government database listing average pesticide residues on food, the researchers estimated each participant’s pesticide exposure based on their food questionnaires. On average, women with high pesticide exposure ate 2.3 servings per day of fruits, berries or vegetables known to have high amounts of pesticide residue. Those in the lowest quartile ate less than one serving of high-pesticide produce per day.

Compared to women with the lowest pesticide exposure, women with the highest amounts of pesticide exposure had an 18% lower IVF success rate. They were also 26% less likely to have a live birth if they did become pregnant. Using modeling, the researchers estimate that exchanging a single serving of high-pesticide produce per day for one with low pesticide load may increase the odds of pregnancy by 79%, and the odds of having a live birth by 88%.

Senior investigator Dr. Jorge Chavarro, associate professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, told Time:4

“I was always skeptical that pesticide residues in foods would have any impact on health whatsoever. So, when we started doing this work a couple of years ago, I thought we were not going to find anything. I was surprised to see anything as far as health outcomes are concerned. I am now more willing to buy organic apples than I was a few months ago.”

Co-author Dr. Yu-Han Chiu, research fellow in the department of nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, added:5

“There have been concerns for some time that exposure to low doses of pesticides through diet, such as those that we observed in this study, may have adverse health effects, especially in susceptible populations such as pregnant women and their fetus, and on children. Our study provides evidence that this concern is not unwarranted.”

As noted by Dr. Philip Landrigan, dean for Global Health and professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai since 2010, in an accompanying commentary,6 “The observations made in this study send a warning that our current laissez-faire attitude toward the regulation of pesticides is failing us,” adding:

“We can no longer afford to assume that new pesticides are harmless until they are definitively proven to cause injury to human health.

We need to overcome the strident objections of the pesticide manufacturing industry, recognize the hidden costs of deregulation, and strengthen requirements for both premarket testing of new pesticides, as well as postmarketing surveillance of exposed populations — exactly as we do for another class of potent, biologically active molecules — drugs.”

Research also showed sperm concentration and quality has dramatically declined in recent decades, and the evidence suggested endocrine-disrupting chemicals are largely to blame. While there are many sources, pesticides, including glyphosate,7 are known endocrine disruptors as well.

According to the first of two published papers,8 a meta-analysis of 185 studies and the largest of its kind, sperm counts around the world declined by more than 50% between 1973 and 2013, and continue to dwindle.

The most significant declines were found in samples from men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. (Men suspected of infertility, such as those attending IVF clinics, were excluded from the study.) Overall, men in these countries had a 52.4% decline in sperm concentration and a 59.3% decline in total sperm count (sperm concentration multiplied by the total volume of an ejaculate).

As it stands, half of the men in most developed nations are now near or at the point of being infertile. Lead author Dr. Hagai Levine, who called the results “profound” and “shocking,”9 worries that human extinction is a very real possibility, should the trend continue unabated.10

Exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) is another major contributor to infertility. In fact, I believe this may be the most significant factor for the observed decrease in male sperm count.11 During World War II, it was well-known that radar operators could easily create sterility by exposing the groin to radar waves. Radar is microwave radiation and was the precursor to cellphones that use similar frequencies.

Modern research also suggested microwave radiation may play a significant role in male reproductive health. While evaluating studies showed you can radically reduce biological microwave damage using calcium channel blockers, Martin Pall, Ph.D., discovered a previously unknown mechanism of biological harm from microwaves emitted by cellphones and other wireless technologies.12

Embedded in your cell membranes are voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs). It turns out these VGCCs are activated by microwaves, and when that happens, about 1 million calcium ions per second are released.

This massive excess of intracellular calcium then stimulates the release of nitric oxide (NO) inside your cell and mitochondria, which combines with superoxide to form peroxynitrite. Not only do peroxynitrites cause oxidative damage, they also create hydroxyl free radicals — the most destructive free radicals known to man.

Hydroxyl free radicals decimate mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, their membranes and proteins, resulting in mitochondrial dysfunction. During a 2013 children’s health expert panel on cellphone and Wi-Fi exposures,13 it was noted, “The testicular barrier, that protects sperm, is the most sensitive of tissues in the body … Besides sperm count and function, the mitochondrial DNA of sperm are damaged three times more if exposed to cellphone radiation.”

In addition to male testes, the tissues with the highest density of VGCCs are your brain and the pacemaker in your heart. What the research tells us is that excessive microwave exposure can be a direct contributor to conditions such as infertility, Alzheimer’s, anxiety, depression, autism and cardiac arrhythmias.14

Indeed, other studies have linked low-level electromagnetic radiation exposure from cellphones to an 8% reduction in sperm motility and a 9% reduction in sperm viability.15 16 Wi-Fi-equipped laptop computers have also been linked to decreased sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation after just four hours of use.17 So, if you care about your reproductive health, the most important strategies to implement are to:

• Avoid carrying your cellphone in your pockets or on your hip

• Avoid using portable computers and tablets on your lap

• Turn off your cellphones at night, as even if you are not talking, they can damage you up to 30 feet away

• Turn off your Wi-Fi at night (ideally in the day also)

• Most importantly, turn off the electricity to your bedroom at the circuit breaker. This typically works for most bedrooms unless you have a room or rooms adjacent to your bedroom, in which case you might need to shut that off, too. This will radically lower electric and magnetic fields while you sleep. If you need a clock, you can use a battery-operated one. Even better — a talking clock with no light that can be picked up on Amazon

In related news, researchers from the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine reported there’s been a shocking increase in glyphosate exposure in recent decades and, subsequently, the level found in people’s urine.

For this study,18 the researchers measured excretion levels of glyphosate and its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid in 100 participants from the Rancho Bernardo Study of Healthy Aging, which ran for 23 years, starting in 1993, the year before genetically engineered (GE) crops were introduced in the U.S.

As one would expect, the introduction of Roundup Ready GE crops led to a massive increase in the use of Roundup, the active ingredient of which is glyphosate. Glyphosate has also become a popular tool for desiccating non-GE grains, legumes and beans.

Data19 20 revealed that between 1974 (the year glyphosate entered the U.S. market and just over two decades before GE crops were introduced) and 2014, glyphosate use in the U.S. increased more than 250-fold. Globally, glyphosate use rose nearly fifteenfold since 1996, two years after the first GE crops hit the market.

At the start of the study, very few of the participants had detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine, but by 2016, 70% of them did.21 Overall, the prevalence of human exposure to glyphosate increased by 500% during the study period (1993 to 2016), while actual levels of the chemical in people’s bodies increased by an astounding 1,208%.

Research22 found that daily exposure to ultra-low levels of glyphosate for two years led to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in rats, and the levels found in people’s urine were a hundredfold greater than those in this rat study.

In response to the findings of rising glyphosate levels in people’s urine, Monsanto was quick to say that the amounts reported “do not raise health concerns,” and that the fact that the chemical is detected in urine is just “one way our bodies get rid of nonessential substances.”23 Speaking to GM Watch, Michael Antoniou, Ph.D., a professor at King’s College London had another take on the matter:24

“This is the first study to longitudinally track urine levels of glyphosate over a period before and after the introduction of GM glyphosate-tolerant crops. It is yet another example illustrating that the vast majority of present-day Americans have readily detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine, ranging from 0.3 parts per billion, as in this study, to 10 times higher — 3 or more parts per billion — detected by others.

These results are worrying because there is increasing evidence to show that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides below regulatory safety limits can be harmful.”

In 2014, the first-ever independent testing for glyphosate in the breast milk of American women found high levels in 30% of the samples.25 The testing, which was not a formal scientific study, was carried out by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse. Still, the findings strongly suggest glyphosate bioaccumulates and builds up in your body over time, despite claims to the contrary.

Breast milk levels were found to be 76 to 166 micrograms per liter (ug/l), which is up to 1,600 times higher than the European Drinking Water Directive allows for individual pesticides, but still well below the 700 ug/l maximum contaminant level (MCL) for glyphosate allowed in the U.S. However, the U.S. level was set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on the now-ridiculous premise that glyphosate will not bioaccumulate.

Importantly, many of the participants in this study were familiar with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and had been actively trying to avoid them for several months to two years. This makes the findings all the more disheartening, and shows just how difficult it is to avoid this chemical unless you’re consistently eating an organic diet.

As noted in an investigation by In These Times,26 in the wake of Moms Across America’s findings, Monsanto defended its flagship pesticide with a study that found no glyphosate in breast milk. However, this study, which was purported to be “independent,” was actually backed by Monsanto. According to In These Times:

“More and more research suggests [sic] that glyphosate exposure can lead to numerous health issues, ranging from non-Hodgkin lymphoma and kidney damage to disruption of gut bacteria and improper hormone functioning. The Moms Across America episode fits a pattern that has emerged since 1974, when the EPA first registered glyphosate for use:

When questions have been raised about the chemical’s safety, Monsanto has ensured that the answers serve its financial interests, rather than scientific accuracy and transparency. Our two-year investigation found incontrovertible evidence that Monsanto has exerted deep influence over EPA decisions since glyphosate first came on the market — via Roundup — more than 40 years ago.”

Suspiciously, archived EPA documents from decades ago, when the agency was initially considering glyphosate for approval, have been heavily redacted.

Despite much of it being illegible, the documents revealed that EPA scientists were greatly concerned about a 1983 mouse study showing that glyphosate caused cancer. The documentation also showed that their interpretation of the data was “subsequently reversed by EPA upper management and advisory boards, apparently under pressure from Monsanto.”

“In years to come, that pivotal 1983 mouse study would be buried under layers of misleading analysis to obscure its meaning. Today, the EPA and Monsanto continue to cite that study as evidence that glyphosate poses no public health risk, even though the study’s actual evidence indicates otherwise,” In These Times reported.

The EPA has also been accused of overlooking other evidence of harm. As mentioned earlier, glyphosate was introduced in 1974, and the earliest example of Monsanto’s attempts to downplay evidence of harm dates back to May 1973, the year before its ultimate approval.

At the time, a biologist at the EPA’s Toxicology Branch Registration Division recommended including the word “Danger” on the label, due to the chemical’s ability to cause eye irritation. Monsanto strongly objected, saying the eye irritation observed was merely the result of “a secondary infection in previously irritated eyes.” After three years of deliberations back and forth, the EPA finally agreed to Monsanto’s request to replace the word “Danger” with the less attention-grabbing “Caution.”

As food has become increasingly adulterated, contaminated and genetically engineered, the need for laboratory testing has exponentially grown. In response to this need, the Health Research Institute (HRI Labs) has created two glyphosate tests for the public — a water testing kit and an environmental exposure test kit.

The environmental exposure test is a urine test that will tell you how much glyphosate you have in your system, which can give you a good idea of the purity of your diet. If your glyphosate level is high, chances are you’ve been exposed to many other agrochemicals as well.

I had this test done before, and had a glyphosate level below the threshold of detection, which is 40 parts per trillion, likely because I eat primarily organic and homegrown foods, and expel toxins I might come in contact with through exercise and regular sauna use.

Everyone can be harmed by pesticides, but if you’re a man or woman of childbearing age or have young children, taking steps to reduce your exposure is especially important. Ideally, all of the food you and your family eat would be organic. That said, not everyone has access to a wide variety of organic produce, and it can sometimes be costlier than buying conventional.

One way to save some money while still lowering your pesticide exposure is to purchase certain organic items, and “settling” for others that are conventionally grown, based on how heavily each given crop is typically treated with pesticides.

Animal products, like meat, butter, milk and eggs are the most important to buy organic, since animal products tend to bioaccumulate toxins from their pesticide-laced feed, concentrating them to far higher concentrations than are typically present in vegetables. Beyond animal foods, the pesticide load of different fruits and vegetables can vary greatly.

In 2015, Consumer Reports analyzed 12 years’ worth of data from the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program to determine the risk categories (from very low to very high) for different types of produce.27 Their results are featured in the video above. Because children are especially vulnerable to the effects of environmental chemicals, including pesticides, they based the risk assessment on a 3.5-year-old child.

They recommend buying organic for any produce that came back in the medium or higher risk categories, which left the following foods as examples of those you should always try to buy organic, due to their elevated pesticide load.

Another excellent source, which is updated annually, is the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) “Dirty Dozen” and “Clean 15” lists of produce with the greatest and least amounts of pesticide contamination. The EWG’s 2024 Shopper’s Guide28 to Pesticides in Produce can be downloaded here.

Washing your produce will help remove surface pesticide residues. According to published research,29 the most effective cleaning method, by far, is to wash your produce using a mixture of tap water and baking soda. Soaking apples in a 1% baking soda solution for 12 to 15 minutes was found to remove 80% of the fungicide thiabendazole and 96% of the insecticide phosmet.

The reason thiabendazole was not as effectively removed is because it penetrated the apple to a depth of 80 micrometers. Importantly, the industry standard for cleaning apples — running under tap water or treating with the bleach solution for two minutes — was ineffective in comparison.

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.