Latest / Beyond Labels Premium / Episode #177: Amos Miller "Partial" Victory, Red Dye Ban, Warning Label on RSV Shot, EPA admits Forever Toxins in Some Fertilizer

Transcript

Episode #177: Amos Miller "Partial" Victory, Red Dye Ban, Warning Label on RSV Shot, EPA admits Forever Toxins in Some Fertilizer · Beyond Labels Premium

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_00: Hello, everybody.
• 0:01
  SPEAKER_00: Welcome to another episode of Beyond Labels with your hosts, myself, Joel Salatin, the farmer, and our favorite researcher, Dr.
• 0:09
  SPEAKER_00: Cena McCullough.
• 0:11
  SPEAKER_00: Today we're going to kind of combine several uh breaking news items that have that have been in and uh and just kind of go through them uh and and and chit-chat about them.
• 0:20
  SPEAKER_00: But first, uh before the news items, uh we want to give a plug for the um March 13 to 14.
• 0:29
  SPEAKER_00: Write it down, March 13 to 14, Rogue Health Food and Wellness Conference is going to be coming to Floral City, Florida.
• 0:37
  SPEAKER_00: For those of you who are in that southern Georgia, Florida area, um, we we move this around.
• 0:43
  SPEAKER_00: We've been doing this now for uh about five years, and uh, and um it's coming to a city near you uh at some time.
• 0:51
  SPEAKER_00: And um, and this is this is branded a little differently uh from the just the simple rogue food conference.
• 0:59
  SPEAKER_00: The link the links will be here in the uh podcast notes.
• 1:03
  SPEAKER_00: And um love to see many of you at that uh rogue, rogue health, food and wellness conference.
• 1:09
  SPEAKER_00: Uh what this is about is circumventing the system.
• 1:12
  SPEAKER_00: How do you how do you uh circumvent the you know the the regulatory environment in uh in health, food, and wellness?
• 1:20
  SPEAKER_00: So it's like drinking out of a Liberty fire hose for a day, trust me.
• 1:24
  SPEAKER_00: And uh and you'll never forget it.
• 1:26
  SPEAKER_00: That's March 13 and 14 coming up in Floral City, Florida.
• 1:30
  SPEAKER_00: Hope to see you there.
• 1:31
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, and let me just quickly add, we're both gonna be there, right?
• 1:36
  SPEAKER_02: Both you and me are gonna be there.
• 1:38
  SPEAKER_02: We're teaming up again with John Moody and some other fantastic speakers to bring you like the best of the best that we know about, you know, health and freedom.
• 1:48
  SPEAKER_02: Um, and it's not just gonna be a bunch of lectures, right?
• 1:52
  SPEAKER_02: You're not just gonna sit there passively listening to us.
• 1:54
  SPEAKER_02: Uh John Moody's put a lot into this with integrating different workshops and we're gonna be on the beach.
• 2:00
  SPEAKER_02: And I mean, it's gonna be fantastic.
• 2:03
  SPEAKER_02: So I think this is great because as you know, we're not having our two days of truth this summer for the first time.
• 2:09
  SPEAKER_02: We're waiting until 2026.
• 2:12
  SPEAKER_02: But now you have this opportunity to come out and see us together after all.
• 2:16
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, that's right.
• 2:17
  SPEAKER_00: So if you wanna, if you want to see us, and yeah, you're right, uh Cena, this is the the um the but the between the between talk uh hobnobbing uh and fellowship is absolutely as valuable as as the information that you'll actually get.
• 2:31
  SPEAKER_00: But you'll meet uh fellow rogues, and uh, and you know, it's it's time for the rogues to take over.
• 2:38
  SPEAKER_00: So uh yeah, uh hope hope to see you there.
• 2:42
  SPEAKER_00: Thank you, Cena.
• 2:43
  SPEAKER_00: So the first item today is the um some of you I know are following the Amos Miller case, the Amish farmer in uh Pennsylvania, who had a uh private membership association, PMA.
• 2:57
  SPEAKER_00: We've discussed those here on the program in the past as a as a circumventive approach to be able to transact food commerce uh direct between um producer and consumer.
• 3:08
  SPEAKER_00: And um, you know, he's been in a almost a decade-long running battle now with the food, I call it the food police, uh, that have tried to uh uh close him down.
• 3:20
  SPEAKER_00: And um, and in all all you know, uh deference to the to the situation, uh let me just say that as much as we love Amos, one of the reasons that he got into the the deep what ditch that he got uh regulatorily was because he was not diligent about making sure that all of his uh patrons signed the private membership association agreement.
• 3:48
  SPEAKER_00: You know, he he started it, it was rocking along okay, and you just kind of get cavalier, you know, and and and and lazy about the uh about the technicalities.
• 3:59
  SPEAKER_00: And so when he was raided, only about half of his patrons were members of the PMA.
• 4:07
  SPEAKER_00: And you s and and and so this really ran him into a deep ditch.
• 4:12
  SPEAKER_00: So for those of you who want to you know push the envelope on some of these things, and I am a I'm a fan of the PMA, I'm a fan of anything that is uh circumventive to the regulatory climate.
• 4:25
  SPEAKER_00: Um, if you're going to do it, you've got to be consistent.
• 4:29
  SPEAKER_00: You've got to be, you know, it's gotta be real.
• 4:31
  SPEAKER_00: And uh it can't be hypocritical, it can't be inconsistent, it's gotta be, you know, it's gotta be the real deal.
• 4:37
  SPEAKER_00: Well, uh he has just um I'm gonna say quasi-won uh another uh uh uh legal battle in which the uh in the in the negotiations between the uh Pennsylvania Department of Ag, who really brought these charges, and the USDA, it's interesting that the the current uh ruling is that he is free to sell out of the state of Pennsylvania, but not within the state of Pennsylvania.
• 5:10
  SPEAKER_00: It's uh uh for the for those of you who are like me and just say sit back and shake your head at the at the legal wranglings of our systems uh that that that seem to whatever not make any sense, this is a perfect example of one that is um that is uh law lawyer ease and not really you know not really dealing with the issue.
• 5:34
  SPEAKER_00: And so the USDA has decided since since the original uh charges and push were brought by Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, known as PDA, uh since that's where everything originated, the USDA has decided to just let that run its course.
• 5:53
  SPEAKER_00: So he's not off, he's not free.
• 5:56
  SPEAKER_00: PDA, the the kind of the trade-off here was uh the USDA will will step away from pursuit, if you will, and turn it over and let PDA run their course.
• 6:10
  SPEAKER_00: So it's not over by long shot, but uh, but it does mean that right now he's completely unfettered in being able to uh to do his private membership association sales outside the state of uh Pennsylvania, but he can't do it inside the state of Pennsylvania.
• 6:30
  SPEAKER_00: And that that's where things are right now.
• 6:32
  SPEAKER_00: It's a it's a strange, you know, it's a strange cat at this point, but um uh, you know, in these kinds of whatever, these kinds of uh negotiations and wranglings, uh strange cats uh get birthed every day.
• 6:50
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, and so I read it too, and and I also was like, oh, that's really interesting.
• 6:56
  SPEAKER_02: Like I've never seen a ruling come down like that.
• 7:00
  SPEAKER_02: But then do you think that part of this is the federal government actually constitutionally restricting itself, that it knows that it it has the authority to regulate interstate commerce?
• 7:12
  SPEAKER_02: So like his his sale of his milk outside of the state, but it doesn't actually have the constitutional power to regulate within the state.
• 7:18
  SPEAKER_02: I mean, maybe I'm just being a little too optimistic here, but do you think maybe that's somewhere where they found justification for this?
• 7:26
  SPEAKER_02: Like I know in the in the ruling it was said that um that the argument was alleging irrevocable harm because it would be the loss because their their farm would basically go under if he if they couldn't sell their products.
• 7:43
  SPEAKER_02: And so they were saying, oh, this was a loss of generations of family history, sweat equity, sweat equity, and memories, and the monetary damages are no substitute, you know.
• 7:53
  SPEAKER_02: So they're allowing it to sell with outside.
• 7:55
  SPEAKER_02: But do you think that's maybe that kind of that legal yeah?
• 8:00
  SPEAKER_00: You know, it's interesting when you when you uh talk with the regulatory bureaucracy, if you will, uh there's a whole kind of whatever uh personality and mystique, you know, around that that whole uh uh you know institution.
• 8:20
  SPEAKER_00: And um it could be exactly like you say, chances are it's they're just tired of it for now.
• 8:29
  SPEAKER_00: They're just tired of it for now, and they just and and and and Pennsylvania is willing to pursue uh and be the bad guy, if you will.
• 8:38
  SPEAKER_00: And and so as long as Pennsylvania is willing to be the bad guy and pursue, USDA says, you know, um we got bigger fish to fry, we got other things going on.
• 8:49
  SPEAKER_00: Let's just let's just you know sit back and let PDA you know be the heavy on this.
• 8:54
  SPEAKER_00: A very diplomatic and political issue uh for them.
• 8:58
  SPEAKER_00: You know, it's it's it's um I I can't imagine the amount of bad press and uh whatever uh you know backlash that the agencies have gotten because generally everybody is pulling for Amos.
• 9:10
  SPEAKER_00: Uh they just feel like he's a he's a martyr, uh he's a you know a farm martyr in this um in this liberty food space.
• 9:18
  SPEAKER_00: And so he's being rallied around um you know by a lot of interests uh, you know, uh in the food freedom movement and the and the health that frankly the health movement.
• 9:30
  SPEAKER_00: Um so so it yeah, I I I I can't begin to um you know to explain what the thinking is behind these agencies.
• 9:44
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 9:44
  SPEAKER_00: Uh you know, I'm not sure.
• 9:45
  SPEAKER_02: Maybe they're afraid with the new regime coming in.
• 9:48
  SPEAKER_00: That that that could be as well, you know, that they just see kind of the end of the thing.
• 9:52
  SPEAKER_00: So, you know what, let's just let's not have any more negative, you know, negative uh equity here, emotional equity.
• 9:59
  SPEAKER_00: Let's just let's just bow out now uh and and we'll see.
• 10:04
  SPEAKER_00: They have to know that a lot of people are watching this case.
• 10:07
  SPEAKER_00: They know that.
• 10:09
  SPEAKER_00: And so I think it's more, hey, let's just take a break from this, let's let Pennsylvania be the bad guy for a while and uh and we'll we'll go on with other things.
• 10:18
  SPEAKER_00: That that that that's my sense.
• 10:20
  SPEAKER_00: I may be wrong, but that's my sense, kind of knowing some of these agencies and how they work.
• 10:25
  SPEAKER_00: But but it, you know, um bless him, you know, he he is able to sell outside the state, so he's gonna be able to continue to function and um and and keep and keep that network of patrons going and serviced.
• 10:40
  SPEAKER_00: And um, and we'll see, you know, um, you know, he he's not a he's not a tiny player.
• 10:48
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, he has like three to four thousand out of state customers.
• 10:52
  SPEAKER_00: So you know, this isn't this isn't 50 people.
• 10:54
  SPEAKER_00: Uh this isn't a hundred households.
• 10:56
  SPEAKER_00: You know, he he's gonna and they are they are pit bulls.
• 11:01
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, they are uh uh totally loyal.
• 11:06
  SPEAKER_00: And uh and so you know, so we'll see.
• 11:09
  SPEAKER_00: And he, you know, he's not he's not a gifted uh negotiator.
• 11:17
  SPEAKER_00: Uh he's just a simple conviction-oriented person.
• 11:22
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, my favorite statement from him is they keep telling you gotta protect the public, you gotta protect the public, you gotta protect the public.
• 11:28
  SPEAKER_00: Well, what about per protecting the private?
• 11:31
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, and that's just such a powerful statement.
• 11:34
  SPEAKER_00: You know, it's okay.
• 11:35
  SPEAKER_00: You you you he says, you guys, you can go protect the public.
• 11:38
  SPEAKER_00: That's fine.
• 11:39
  SPEAKER_00: You go protect the public.
• 11:40
  SPEAKER_00: I'm protecting the private.
• 11:42
  SPEAKER_00: And uh and so he he's got wonderful little sound bites that he, you know, has been able to develop over the years.
• 11:49
  SPEAKER_00: And um, more power to him.
• 11:51
  SPEAKER_00: We're all we're all pulling for him and and hope that he can prevail.
• 11:55
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, and I think this is such a great reminder to all of us, like, you know, even if you know, like you're not one of his patrons, right?
• 12:03
  SPEAKER_02: It's such a great reminder that we need to stand up for our right to choose, to have the choice of the foods we want to put in our bodies.
• 12:10
  SPEAKER_02: And this reminds me of um, we have a listener who sent in a comment for us.
• 12:15
  SPEAKER_02: This is from Sarah Um Chisholm, I believe, out of Texas.
• 12:20
  SPEAKER_02: And she was talking about how she saw a recent episode about raw milk and wanted to share a testimonial about one of her daughters.
• 12:28
  SPEAKER_02: She said when her daughter was around four, she actually started having stomach pain, horrible gas, and diarrhea.
• 12:35
  SPEAKER_02: They were at the time using a conventional pediatrician.
• 12:38
  SPEAKER_02: And get this, Joel.
• 12:39
  SPEAKER_02: This pediatrician repeatedly told them that kids between the age of four and seven have the most, quote, tummy issues.
• 12:47
  SPEAKER_02: So, like, that's just the norm, you know.
• 12:50
  SPEAKER_02: It's just okay, that happens, that will go away, right?
• 12:53
  SPEAKER_02: Well, it did not go away.
• 12:55
  SPEAKER_02: And as the years passed, the issues um only got worse, increasing in frequency.
• 13:00
  SPEAKER_02: So they actually um, you know, the end of the story is they got her on raw milk and it's had a huge impact.
• 13:08
  SPEAKER_02: She's not having problems anymore.
• 13:10
  SPEAKER_02: I mean, it's it's incredible.
• 13:12
  SPEAKER_02: So that milk was used as actual medicine for this child that healed her.
• 13:18
  SPEAKER_02: And so that's why it's so important that we stand up, even if you don't drink milk, it's somebody else's medicine.
• 13:24
  SPEAKER_02: So it is important that we stand up, you know, for our right to choose and to have the choice, you know.
• 13:31
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah.
• 13:31
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, we listen, we are we are um adamantly, adamantly uh uh defenders of of the right to choose.
• 13:41
  SPEAKER_00: Uh here's a sound bite that I've developed here just lately, and that is in our country, we have we have the right to choose, we have the right to choose in the bedroom, the right to choose in the bathroom, the right to choose in the womb, but we don't have the right to choose in the kitchen.
• 13:58
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 13:59
  SPEAKER_00: And and we are we are committed to defending that right of you and I to choose uh what goes through our mouth and and fuels our microbiome, frankly.
• 14:09
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, if if if that isn't one of the most um intimate and important sovereign rights of human agency, um, I don't know what is.
• 14:19
  SPEAKER_00: And so so we're gonna defend that.
• 14:21
  SPEAKER_00: So that that that's Amos.
• 14:22
  SPEAKER_00: Anything more on that, Cena, on your thoughts, or we go on to the next one.
• 14:25
  SPEAKER_02: I think that's good.
• 14:26
  SPEAKER_02: We have a lot to cover, so let's move on to the next one.
• 14:30
  SPEAKER_00: Okay, so the the next one is that uh that January 17 is the end of a comment period for a new uh proposed rule change uh from the Food Safety Inspection Service, known as the FSIS, regarding small-scale poultry processing.
• 14:48
  SPEAKER_00: And this is critical because right now there are only 30 nationwide, count them up, 30 um small-scale poultry processing facilities that are federal inspected or that are government inspected.
• 15:06
  SPEAKER_00: So we got 50 states, it's a big country, so there are only 30 of these facilities.
• 15:12
  SPEAKER_00: Uh, to my knowledge, there's only one in Virginia.
• 15:15
  SPEAKER_00: So now I'm not talking about Tyson processing facilities.
• 15:18
  SPEAKER_00: I'm talking about places where a farmer uh can raise some chickens and take them to a facility and then and then sell those chickens uh legally, legally.
• 15:32
  SPEAKER_00: And there's only roughly about 30 of them in the entire nation.
• 15:37
  SPEAKER_00: And so what has what has come down now?
• 15:40
  SPEAKER_00: FSIS is proposing a new rule change on salmonella.
• 15:46
  SPEAKER_00: And interestingly, they have been you know uh pushing back on on trying to make new regulations about salmonella.
• 15:54
  SPEAKER_00: They've they've um you know made them more and more and more strict uh for years, for a long time, and it has had zero effect on the amount of salmonella, human salmonella outbreaks in the nation.
• 16:09
  SPEAKER_00: So there is is zero um zero track record efficacy, if you will, that shows that cracking down on salmonella at a poultry processing facility has an effect on salmonella outbreaks within the culture.
• 16:28
  SPEAKER_00: Well, it's because most salmonella comes not from chicken, but from produce.
• 16:34
  SPEAKER_00: In fact, most foodborne bacteria illnesses, 95% of them, a lot of people don't realize this, 95% of all foodborne illnesses, bacterial illnesses, come from produce.
• 16:46
  SPEAKER_00: The reason is because produce does not have a kill step.
• 16:51
  SPEAKER_00: So I'm using some jargon here, but hang with me.
• 16:54
  SPEAKER_00: A kill step is something that inherently kills, you know, uh bacteria, like heat, you know, cooking, all right, uh, or extreme cold, freezing, all right.
• 17:06
  SPEAKER_00: All of these things either kill or greatly inhibit um, you know, the the ability of bacteria to you know to do harm.
• 17:21
  SPEAKER_00: And so um, so you know, the the most risky thing you can buy at the supermarket from a foodborne bacteria standpoint, the most risky thing you can buy is leafy greens because they don't have a kill step.
• 17:35
  SPEAKER_00: They're not frozen and they're not cooked.
• 17:38
  SPEAKER_00: And and uh so so leafy greens and the and and that's why they are the biggest thing.
• 17:43
  SPEAKER_00: But for some reason, and again, who knows the machinations down in the belly of the beast in the swamp, um why they've decided to come after this.
• 17:53
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, you know, if if you're a conspiratist, you could say, well, they're actually trying to close small plants.
• 17:58
  SPEAKER_00: Uh, you know, I I don't know any of that.
• 18:00
  SPEAKER_00: But uh but the fact is that they have presented this new rule that that would um that would make it far more difficult for small plants to exist.
• 18:14
  SPEAKER_00: So this Cena, this is a perfect example.
• 18:17
  SPEAKER_00: We have talked about this before to make sure our people, all of our people understand that all these food regulations are scale prejudicial.
• 18:28
  SPEAKER_00: And that inherently makes them bad laws, bad regulations.
• 18:33
  SPEAKER_00: It should not be easier to comply if you're big than if you're small.
• 18:39
  SPEAKER_00: That's inherently a prejudicial regulation, if it's easier to comply when you're big and when you're small.
• 18:45
  SPEAKER_00: So let me give you an example.
• 18:47
  SPEAKER_00: In in the rule, and and and of course, there's a lot of there's a lot of nebulous in in the rule, but the rule is going to require testing.
• 18:57
  SPEAKER_00: And so two things about this testing.
• 19:00
  SPEAKER_00: Number one is the cost of the instruments, the the actual infrastructure uh to do the testing.
• 19:10
  SPEAKER_00: That's unclear.
• 19:12
  SPEAKER_00: And that could be that could be not cheap.
• 19:15
  SPEAKER_00: You know, it could be an apparatus, you know, a a laboratory type apparatus uh that is very, very expensive.
• 19:24
  SPEAKER_00: Well, if you're a Tyson and you're processing um you know 200,000 chickens a day at a plant, you know, an apparatus that costs$50,000,$100,000 is uh, you know, spit in the ocean.
• 19:41
  SPEAKER_00: You know, you spread that over your, you know,$200,000 chickens and it's not that expensive.
• 19:46
  SPEAKER_00: But if you're a small plant, like one that we use here in Virginia, so we process our chickens uh at two places.
• 19:53
  SPEAKER_00: One here is at the farm under the under the exemption rule, uh, and the other one is at a small federal inspected place, so we can sell across the state lines.
• 20:02
  SPEAKER_00: Um if you're there, you know, and you're only doing 20,000 chickens a year, uh, the cost of such an infrastructure could be, you know, could literally put you out of business.
• 20:13
  SPEAKER_00: And so that that's one element.
• 20:15
  SPEAKER_00: The second element is, and this is even more agree uh well, I don't know if it's more egregious or not, uh, but it could be, and that is that the testing makes no differentiation between scale of plant.
• 20:30
  SPEAKER_00: In other words, it requires uh, and again, this is a little bit unclear, but um, if it requires one test per day that costs whatever amount on a small plant that's doing 500 chickens in a day, one one tested chicken out of 500 versus one tested chicken out of 200 or 300,000 at a Tyson plant is is is is a joke.
• 21:11
  SPEAKER_00: You know, uh what whatever testing is required should be even across the board.
• 21:17
  SPEAKER_00: Uh it should like should be per pound.
• 21:20
  SPEAKER_00: Uh, you know, if if you're doing X number of pounds, you have to check, you know, every time you hit whatever it is, a thousand pounds or two thousand pounds or whatever it is, you know, you take a test.
• 21:30
  SPEAKER_00: Uh, but that's not the way it's worded.
• 21:32
  SPEAKER_00: It's it's worded per plant, regardless of size, um, has to pull this test, which is very unclear how much the test will cost.
• 21:40
  SPEAKER_00: So then you have another prejudicial thing.
• 21:42
  SPEAKER_00: Not only do you have, do you have the the the foolishness of of let's say, you know, one test in 500 chickens versus one test in in 500,000 chickens, um, you have that, but then you also have the cost of the test and the the labor, the you know everything surrounding the cost of the test uh being prejudicial against a small plant that's that's pulling a test on a small birds versus a large number of birds.
• 22:11
  SPEAKER_00: So you know those are those are really critical um you know critical scale prejudicial elements that absolutely don't have and say you can speak to this that any any true scientist looking at at efficacy of a test would appreciate or should appreciate that one test per 500 birds isn't the same as one test per 500 000 birds that's just it's it's just silly it is just silly and joel as I'm hearing you speak because this is a new issue for me I'm wondering the ramifications for like a consumer do you think this might lead to consumers having less access to like chemical free poultry absolutely because these these 30 small uh small you know inspected facilities around the nation uh they are they are the you know one of the significant conduits for for consumer choice to not to not get a Tyson chicken to not get a chicken from you know one of these great great big uh facilities and so again uh this kind of rule you know for the large facility uh you know it's it's like a little mosquito bite okay you know but but for a small plant a thing like this can absolutely be devastating um devastating economically it can be devastating look you know if if you're only testing one one and a half a million chickens versus one in five hundred thousand were versus one in five hundred chickens what are the chances you're gonna find something that you're gonna tend to find something more in the you know one and a half and and here's the other thing uh Cena the the big plants there's um they often when they when they pull a sample they just they just drop the chicken in chlorine you know before they pull a sample they just they just drop it in chlorine oh i in or in order to kill everything so the test will be negative but small plants we don't want to drop stuff in we in fact many of our small plants we don't even want to use chlorine or very sparingly and so and so the the small plant is much more vulnerable and and and realize here's here's another big thing uh there are uh where am I looking I'm looking at one of my little cheat sheets here it fails to uh un to differentiate between benign strains and toxic strains so you know salmonella is a broad and you can speak to this now you it it's it's a broad uh whatever surname of a group of bacteria some of which are harmful some of which are good and and and and so a small plant wants the good strains because they aid in digestion and doesn't want to kill everything and doesn't want to sterilize everything and so your your risk factor and and and the the the testing again does not differentiate between good strains and bad strains.
• 25:47
  SPEAKER_00: It's like you know it's like it's like the the the the cheesemongers that make um you know moldy cheese um cheese that will mold that is living food that is that is real food versus you know squeezable Vita uh that's not living food it's sterile uh so it's it's um you know it's mold free in fact it won't even mold you can spray you can squeeze it on the table and it won't even it won't even grow mold and and and the and these food regulations have attacked have attacked the moldy cheese people uh for having what you know contamination and all this stuff when actually that is the real you know that's the real nutrient dense stuff.
• 26:33
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah and you bring up such a good point that I don't think most of us realize it's not really well talked about is that you know you can test positive like as a human you can test positive for strep or staph or C diff and have no symptoms whatsoever.
• 26:50
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 26:50
  SPEAKER_02: So a lot of the testing that we use in modern agriculture and modern medicine is based on the old germ theory, which as we all are becoming aware now, there's a lot of problems with the old germ theory, you know, and I'm not saying people don't get sick from eating food sometimes.
• 27:09
  SPEAKER_02: Exactly why they get sick, if you're being honest, we don't actually know right because why is it that a human can test positive for strep or staph or C.
• 27:19
  SPEAKER_02: diff and have no symptoms but the next human can test you know positive and have symptoms right we there's a lot we don't know and we know what we think is that these microbes are working together as a big ecosystem.
• 27:33
  SPEAKER_02: And so just because you have a certain let's say thumbprint of your microbiome you know we had Dr.
• 27:39
  SPEAKER_02: Sabine Hazan on the program previously talking about this how we all have a unique microbiome.
• 27:44
  SPEAKER_02: And even she's saying she's a leading expert in the microbiome and even she's saying everyone's microbiome is different and you cannot compare one side by side to the other.
• 27:55
  SPEAKER_02: But that's what we're doing with a lot of these tests is we're assuming this microbe at this level is bad when we know without any doubt that in the human literature itself you can't make that direct comparison because you can measure strep or staff in one person at a certain level and there's no symptoms.
• 28:15
  SPEAKER_02: So we're missing some piece of the puzzle that we don't exactly know what it is.
• 28:20
  SPEAKER_00: Absolutely and we've all heard of false positives think about COVID and how many times there was a false positive and and and we test and test you know when George Orwell wrote uh um you know animal farm he said uh show me the man and I'll show you the disease basically he was he he was saying if if we look if we look long enough and hard enough we'll find something we talked about this on a very uh recent podcast that was just a couple times ago about these um the these PCR tests and the cycles and and how if you if you keep ramping up ramping up ramping up the magnification the the whole air the earth the world is full of of of floaties I think of them as floaties you know uh invisible floaties and and if you ramp it up high enough you know you're gonna find bits and pieces of of microbial detritus um yes somewhere and actually you know we had i i want to bring this in now because one of our listeners ken he he sent in what I think is is just a great way to to perceive PCR Ken says PCR is like looking through a microscope at an elephant if it focuses on the end of the tail you think it is a it is furry like a woolly mammoth if it focuses on the toenail you're gonna think it's armored like an armadilla armadillo right and he says love you all Merry Christmas I mean isn't that just the that's a great way to actually describe what's happening there.
• 29:50
  SPEAKER_00: Sure sure with the I I find it fascinating that that he's using that as a microscope but historically it's always been the you know the the blind men the blind men that walk up to the elephant you know and the one feels the tail methinks this is rather like a fan one feels the trunk methinks this is rather like a tree and and and and so it's it's uh it's it's interesting that both the the blind men feeling it and the the anal microscope guy looking at the bits and pieces they both are neither one of them can get the context of the of the whole situation.
• 30:24
  SPEAKER_00: Yes they can't Elliot Coleman has a wonderful you know he's the he's the four seasons gardening guru and he has this wonderful um metaphor that he uses he says you walk into this museum and there's this beautiful hanging tapestry that's been you know um um maybe decades in making and it's a it's a beautiful pastoral uh pastoral bucolic setting you know with some cows and a house and some people in a stream and trees and all and and and and you know you're standing there uh admiring this this beautiful uh tapestry and then you so you you're suddenly aware uh the of all this kind of murmuring and and uh and noise coming uh and and you look around where's all this you know murmuring and noise and and and stuff coming and you walk around behind the tapestry and there's all the scientists behind the tapestry trying to figure out what in the world this is because they're looking at the at the the reverse side of the tapestry you know that's that's all got all the loose threads and the tie-offs and all that looks like a bunch of chaos and they don't have enough sense to just go around step back and look at the whole you know beautiful tapestry from the other side.
• 31:36
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah perspective is so important right and much of life comes down to perspective it's it's fascinating yeah um Julie do you have anything to close that one off before we move to the next one because I'm chopping at the bit to get to our next okay all right uh the the the the the two the the there's there's three other little very very quick smaller smaller components of this that are that are a problem uh one is that there is zero salmonella rule on red meat so it seems to be at a a somewhat of an attack on poultry for some reason again I I you know I don't want to put words in mouths but but um there seems to be a you know a bit of a um singling out if you will of poultry versus anything else pork or beef or anything um number two is that there's no concession in the rule made for rural uh uh facilities a lot most of these small little custom facilities that do that that you know process chicken under inspection for uh other people don't don't have um they're not they're not in in the big city you know they're out in on farms in rural areas where where the actual mailing of the test the actual uh so you pull your sample and and it's now a couple of days in the mail it's the the the the chances of degradation or taint or or anything uh you know with with like a two-day mail or three day mail versus you know real time right now with a great big laboratory in-house that a great big facility can pay for are you with me that you know that those differences they're they're not even recognized in this rule so again again the rural smaller you know out of out of the the industrial system facility is um is harmed and then the final thing is that uh this this rule if it if it goes through as said the this rule for the first time gives fsi the right to change the rule anytime they want without public interface most of the time when FSIS makes big rule changes like this they they by law have to have a public comment period so you know you have to have this this this time when the public can respond they can see it they can review it and obviously lobbyists can you know come and and and speak to it but if this rule goes through as written uh to my knowledge this might be one of the first times that the the the rule if enacted gives carte blanche uh right to FSIS to change the rule without a public comment period going into the future and so I just see it as a really uh antagonistic prejudicial uh um tyrannical taking if you will of historical norms and and the way fsi has interacted with you know uh with the system uh prior to now so is the bureaucracy allowed to do that because I know remember we talked about the court you know recently passed that decision that they can't make laws is this like different it's just because it's a rule it's even though it's I'm shooting assuming it's gonna go into the federal register right yeah yeah yeah it would be so uh okay but they're still allowed to do it I I've well I think they would be allowed if if they if they pass this um I you know it it it it's it's really different it's really different and it it's it just it just doesn't pass the smell test for me at all on on on so many levels.
• 35:33
  SPEAKER_02: Um and again I I don't want to I don't want to read into it more than there is but it certainly doesn't seem to be a very uh friendly uh a very friendly thing for um you know for the for the outside you know the the the smaller players and the uncon the smaller and unconventional players uh it's definitely uh prejudicial toward them good all right what what do you have Sina hopefully a little more positive but so my goodness Joel I I don't know if this is because the Biden administration's about to leave and so they're trying to get some last like this is what our legacy is going to be or if it's a combination of that and you know the new administration's coming in and people are afraid like now it's cover your butt time but there's been a lot of movement happening um in the government in terms of our food supply so on January 15th which for us was just yesterday the FDA banned the red dye number three right red dye number three it's a synthetic dye it has been banned in cos in cosmetics um for over 30 years so get this it's been banned for topical application like cosmetics for over 30 years due to its potential cancer risk okay but it was still allowed to be in food and medications that you ingest so doesn't that like what what yeah wow that's it's um yeah you can't you can't wrap your head around that how how how how could anybody how could anybody say you know um this is too dangerous to this is too dangerous to rub on your skin but it's not too dangerous to swallow it's it's crazy it's crazy so you'll go to the the market now and you can see certain medications like uh a lot of um like cold and flu medications you know cough syrups that have dyes in them so you're apparently allowed to digest those but you can't rub it like you can't put on lipstick that might have that dye in it it's crazy so finally the FDA has banned red number three from the food and drugs you can ingest um because of its link to cancer and this is rooted in the Delaney clause which prohibits cancer causing additives okay so what's incredible is just how prominent red number three is in our food system.
• 38:22
  SPEAKER_02: You know it's it's a bright cherry red hue.
• 38:25
  SPEAKER_02: It's used in foods beverages medications even like unexpected things like tortilla chips, fruit cuffs sometimes they're in beef sticks to give them color right crazy um almonds you can sometimes see these in the if you want to look at a list the environmental working group has um a list of like over 3000 products in their database that have this dye in it currently and we'll include a link in the show description for that.
• 38:54
  SPEAKER_02: So the um this was prompted by the Center for Science in the public interest.
• 39:02
  SPEAKER_02: Okay they petitioned the FDA in um 2022 and there were 23 organizations that backed this petition as well it invoked the Delaney clause and it argued that um that red number three was flagged as a cancer causing chemical decades ago and should have been banned sooner.
• 39:23
  SPEAKER_02: So they are actually finally banning it but um oh and by the way other comp other countries like Japan and Norway and the European Union they've already banned it right this has been banned and they use the precautionary principle.
• 39:40
  SPEAKER_02: So this is one thing I wanted to bring up in this story that I think is really important is that other countries like the European Union they use a precautionary principle when it comes to their food supply which that means they don't add any harmful chemicals until they know that there's definitive proof like so they don't they won't add anything to the food until they know there's proof that it doesn't do harm.
• 40:04
  SPEAKER_02: The United States doesn't do it that way.
• 40:06
  SPEAKER_02: In the United States we add stuff you know like we've talked about a lot of times through the grass loophole and then you have to bear the burden of proof that it's actually causing harm which is really difficult to do considering all the different chemicals that we ingest and that no one really tracks the quantities and you know and the frequency at which we consume these chemicals.
• 40:28
  SPEAKER_02: So we're like backward from the other countries and they've already banned it a while ago.
• 40:33
  SPEAKER_00: So so so just to to make sure that everybody gets this because this is this is good stuff.
• 40:39
  SPEAKER_00: This is foundational like philosophical science the precautionary principle says that if there's a if there's any concern whatsoever we don't do it until we prove that it's okay.
• 40:54
  SPEAKER_00: Mm-hmm exactly so so uh you know when it comes when it comes to food that you're gonna eat uh and it's and it's some strange concoction that's not been around for a long time uh you know the precautionary principle would say all right uh prove to me that it's okay the opposite of precaution is ah anything goes and um and it'll be fine it'll be fine and if and um and if if if if somebody doesn't want this you prove prove to me that it's harmful prove to me that it's harmful which then you know you got to have you know causality and all sorts of things and uh and and so I just want everybody to really get this precautionary principle because um if if you can if you can actually have a conversation with someone use the term precautionary principle you'll sound really educated and then and you'll get you'll get um you know you'll get uh uh language language def uh deference and that's really good when you're having a conversation with somebody these are Joel's insider secrets of how to win arguments that's right yeah well yeah and um and it it is it is so important to realize this because um a lot of the times when you read the approval letters for instance for certain chemicals being being allowed in our food supply or like the grass notifications are not even approval letters but basically the letter saying you know it's grass.
• 42:37
  SPEAKER_02: If you look at those the fallback is generally recognized as safe.
• 42:42
  SPEAKER_02: Yes everybody's with us on this uh because we we get new people all the time that don't know the lingo generally recognized as safe that's grass yes yeah and so if you if you are familiar with grass we'll include a link to that podcast we did in the show description so you can catch up and be aware of how thousands of untested unregulated chemicals have entered in our food supply and it's through this grass loophole a regulatory loophole so when you look at the the rationale for allowing a lot of these chemicals in the food supply they will often lean on the argument that it's it's a small quantity right it's a small quantity well here's the thing like I said no one's tracking that and now we know we consume 70% or more of our calories from from processed food and ultra processed food.
• 43:35
  SPEAKER_02: So that means we're getting more of these chemicals in our diet than we even did a decade ago.
• 43:42
  SPEAKER_02: You know, add in the fluoride in the toothpaste and you know the um forever chemicals in the sewage sludge, which is another breaking story.
• 43:51
  SPEAKER_02: You know, so there's a cumulative exposure.
• 43:54
  SPEAKER_02: And so I'm not some alarmist that's saying oh you know this little bit of chemical that's in Not one food is you're gonna kill over and die.
• 44:02
  SPEAKER_02: That's not happening.
• 44:04
  SPEAKER_02: Like we know that that's not the truth.
• 44:06
  SPEAKER_02: But what we're not looking at is what happens over time when these toxins accumulate in the body, in large part because we're being exposed to many more of them in the air, in the water, and in our food.
• 44:18
  SPEAKER_02: And we're increasing our consumption of the foods that contain these small quantities of these potential toxins.
• 44:26
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, in uh in the realm of agriculture uh chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and stuff, the the benchmark for this uh is called lethal dose.
• 44:38
  SPEAKER_00: What's the lethal dose?
• 44:40
  SPEAKER_00: And so all these products, all these toxic products have to have a lethal dose.
• 44:47
  SPEAKER_00: And and you know, so you've got you gotta you gotta kill somebody something.
• 44:53
  SPEAKER_00: You know, you gotta figure out well, what's the what's the parts per million?
• 44:56
  SPEAKER_00: What's the thing that makes a lethal dose?
• 44:58
  SPEAKER_00: And I'm I'm I'm I can't help but bring the story.
• 45:00
  SPEAKER_00: Years ago when Bill Wolf at Necessary Trading was was trying to import um uh Icelandic kelp.
• 45:08
  SPEAKER_00: So this this Ascophylum nodosum, it's the it's the best kelp in the world in those Icelandic waters.
• 45:14
  SPEAKER_00: Uh they they actually harvest it like hay, you know, the the tides come in and it and it and it and it extends and then the tides drop and uh and it and it accumulates on top of the ground, you know, on top of the ground, on top of the water.
• 45:28
  SPEAKER_00: And so they they literally rotationally harvest these huge, I mean, square miles of Ascophylum nidosum um uh seaweed beds, like like massive um hay mowers.
• 45:42
  SPEAKER_00: And it's it's quite a it's quite an amazing thing.
• 45:44
  SPEAKER_00: Anyway, he was trying to get these through um because they have cytokinons in them, cytokinons are growth hormones, he was trying to get them approved as a as a fertilizer.
• 45:56
  SPEAKER_00: Uh, not just, I mean, we use them as a as an animal supplement, you know, uh as part of the mineral program.
• 46:02
  SPEAKER_00: But he was trying to get them to, well, in in that you have to, if you're if you're going to, here's what's funny.
• 46:09
  SPEAKER_00: In order to register a product as a fertilizer, you have to determine its lethal dose.
• 46:15
  SPEAKER_00: What's the lethal dose of this material?
• 46:19
  SPEAKER_00: And so, of course, he's he's uh he's feeding rats, okay?
• 46:22
  SPEAKER_00: He's trying to get his, trying to comply with the requirement.
• 46:26
  SPEAKER_00: And he feeds this stuff to the rats, and of course, the rats just get healthier and healthier and healthier.
• 46:30
  SPEAKER_00: He can never kill one.
• 46:32
  SPEAKER_00: So he finally takes a five-gallon bucket, fills it with water, puts some uh this kelp in it, and and and drowns a couple of rats so he can finally have a lethal dose uh to put on the checkbox, you know, of uh how much it takes.
• 46:47
  SPEAKER_00: It's just hilarious, you know, uh how how uh whatever uh out of out of uh reason or sense these these regulations are.
• 47:00
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, well, and it tells you how they favor big industry, you know, and and the solutions they come up with.
• 47:06
  SPEAKER_02: I mean, that's it's that's that's absurd.
• 47:11
  SPEAKER_00: But he he checked he checked the box.
• 47:17
  SPEAKER_02: All right, that poor mouse.
• 47:20
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, right.
• 47:21
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, right.
• 47:22
  SPEAKER_02: Uh but um what else is absurd, Joel, is how long companies have to comply with this new ban of red number three.
• 47:33
  SPEAKER_02: So companies have until January, okay.
• 47:37
  SPEAKER_02: Right now we're January 2025, they have till January 2027 to remove red number three from food, and they have until January 2028 to remove it from ingested drugs.
• 47:54
  SPEAKER_02: So two to three years to, you know, so it I think that's absurd.
• 48:00
  SPEAKER_02: Like, so first of all, now the FDA is saying, oh yeah, this could cause cancer, so we should, you know, we should ban it.
• 48:09
  SPEAKER_02: And other countries have already banned it, but we're saying you got two to three years companies to be able to replace it, you know, get it out of the product, which is absurd because Joel, the fact that other countries have already banned it means that I bet you most of these companies producing these products had to create formulations for other countries that didn't have the red number three in them.
• 48:32
  SPEAKER_02: So just use those formulations.
• 48:34
  SPEAKER_02: But instead, now we're gonna all be exposed to this, you know, while they have all this grace period to figure out how to get it out.
• 48:42
  SPEAKER_02: So you got to read your label.
• 48:44
  SPEAKER_02: What you want to do is you want to look on the ingredient label.
• 48:47
  SPEAKER_02: You're looking for either it will say red number three, or it could appear as F D N C red number three, or it could appear as urethracin, which is E-R-Y T-H R O S I N E.
• 49:08
  SPEAKER_02: So food processed food products, uh, you know, drug products, flip it over and just read that label.
• 49:16
  SPEAKER_02: And you know, if if you want to try to avoid this red number three, that now is so bad the FDA is willing to ban it.
• 49:24
  SPEAKER_00: Wow.
• 49:25
  SPEAKER_00: Well, well, um, probably a lot of this uh ultra-processed stuff that it's in has a sell by date that is a couple of years out in advance, you know, and so uh that's one reason they probably give a long horizon.
• 49:41
  SPEAKER_00: But uh yeah, the whole the whole thing is um the the the the the hypocrisy of it all is uh what's what in in anyway it's frustrating.
• 49:54
  SPEAKER_02: It's very frustrating, and you know, so California is making the news a lot, and one is that um Newsom, their governor, he in um last September, he actually signed into legislation um a law that bans six synthetic food dyes from being served in food in public schools, and so he banned red 40, yellow five, yellow six, blue one, blue two, and green three.
• 50:25
  SPEAKER_02: So some states like California are actually just doing it themselves, like forget about the FDA.
• 50:32
  SPEAKER_02: We're just gonna take charge.
• 50:33
  SPEAKER_02: So he actually passed that, they signed that legislation into law banning those dyes.
• 50:38
  SPEAKER_02: Again, though, this law doesn't go into effect until the end of December 2027.
• 50:44
  SPEAKER_02: So, so once again, it's two years, and the the kids in the schools get to eat that that die.
• 50:51
  SPEAKER_02: So another um, I want to move on to the next story.
• 50:55
  SPEAKER_02: You know, that was uh okay, FDA banned that one.
• 50:58
  SPEAKER_02: FDA, again, I told you if there's like moving and shaking down at the organization.
• 51:03
  SPEAKER_02: I've never seen this much activity.
• 51:06
  SPEAKER_02: So the FDA came out on um their med watch, and they basically couldn't believe this one, Joel.
• 51:14
  SPEAKER_02: They're requiring a a safety warning.
• 51:19
  SPEAKER_02: Uh so a label, it's a safety label warning people about the two of the RSV vaccines and how they might be associated with Gion Bar syndrome.
• 51:38
  SPEAKER_02: So there's there's two RSV, and I you know, an RSV is all in the news right now, right?
• 51:44
  SPEAKER_02: It's lots of people are getting what they're saying is RSV.
• 51:48
  SPEAKER_02: And so now the FDA, which is interesting that they're coming out at this time, um, is saying that you have to have a label on that because it could increase your chance of getting Guillon Barr syndrome.
• 52:02
  SPEAKER_02: So this is what it says FDA has required each manufacturer to include a new warning about the risk for Gillon Barr syndrome following administration of their respiratory succinctional virus vaccine, RSV vaccine.
• 52:19
  SPEAKER_02: So it's for two of them um Brisvo, if I'm pronouncing that one correctly, and this one resulted in a post-market observational study suggesting an increased risk of Gain-Barr syndrome during 42 days after this uh vaccination.
• 52:40
  SPEAKER_02: Okay, so that was the first one.
• 52:42
  SPEAKER_02: And this one uh one of these is manufactured by uh Pfizer, I believe.
• 52:54
  SPEAKER_02: Um okay, but the other one is Erex V.
• 52:58
  SPEAKER_02: And it says post-marketing observational studies again showed increased risk of Guillaume Barr syndrome um following 40 days of vaccination, 40 days post-vaccination of this vaccine.
• 53:10
  SPEAKER_02: So just for people who aren't aware, Guillon Barr syndrome is no joke.
• 53:15
  SPEAKER_00: It is oh no, that's a that's a terrible, terrible thing.
• 53:19
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, it's when so the there's a damage to the nerve cells and it causes muscle weakness and can even cause paralysis in some individuals.
• 53:28
  SPEAKER_02: So this is a this is a serious potential um side effect.
• 53:32
  SPEAKER_02: And again, I want to point out it's post-market, post-market observational study.
• 53:39
  SPEAKER_02: So we have the same concept that is rolling over from the food industry into this, you know, drug and biologics industry, um, where you don't have to like have this proof of burden going into it.
• 53:55
  SPEAKER_02: You know, the burden is the hurdle is low.
• 53:58
  SPEAKER_02: It's what I'm is what I'm trying to say.
• 54:01
  SPEAKER_00: The burden of proof to show uh to show no harm uh is is completely out of sync with the burden of proof to show that it might do some people some good.
• 54:17
  SPEAKER_02: Yes, exactly.
• 54:19
  SPEAKER_02: Exactly.
• 54:20
  SPEAKER_02: Um, and uh just for clarification, the abrisvo vaccine was manufactured by Pfizer and the RexVrexV vaccine was manufactured by uh Glaxo Smith Klein Biologics.
• 54:35
  SPEAKER_02: So they have to put that new warning label on there, which I I was just I was just surprised.
• 54:40
  SPEAKER_02: So so that's the second thing that government is doing, and but that's not all.
• 54:48
  SPEAKER_02: Another one is um the EPA is now moving and a shaking on Tuesday of this week.
• 54:58
  SPEAKER_02: They actually released um like a report talking about that, you know, we've talked about sewage sludge um you know on this podcast before and how it's a byproduct of wastewater treatment plants.
• 55:14
  SPEAKER_02: And we talked about the sewage sludge being used on on crops, not organic crops, but crops, but some conventional crops.
• 55:22
  SPEAKER_02: And we mentioned about I brought up the CDC's website and I showed you how they've indicated the CDC themselves have indicated all these talk potential toxins that are present in the sewage sludge.
• 55:33
  SPEAKER_02: Well, now the EPA has come out saying that there's forever chemicals in the sewage in some of the sewage sludge and that it can get into milk, eggs, and meat that come from animals that are raised on that agricultural land where sewage sludge has been applied.
• 55:50
  SPEAKER_02: And they're actually talking about in this report how um it can show up even in some organic foods because it can show up years later.
• 56:00
  SPEAKER_02: If let's say the sewage sludge was used on some farmland for raising, can growing conventional crops, for instance.
• 56:09
  SPEAKER_02: It could be years down the road.
• 56:11
  SPEAKER_02: And some of the chemicals, like the forever chemicals that were in that sewage sludge, can show up in crops, you know, years later, including if that farmland was converted or transitioned over to organic farmland.
• 56:26
  SPEAKER_02: Um, there's two Texas families that have filed a lawsuit last year against the companies that are making these, what do they call, biosolids, uh like Sinagro.
• 56:37
  SPEAKER_02: Um, and they said that basically their operation was poisoned by the sewage sludge that that spread onto um the neighbor's property.
• 56:47
  SPEAKER_02: So this is becoming more and more um of a problem, and people are becoming more aware of it.
• 56:53
  SPEAKER_02: And now the EPA has finally stepped up and said in this report, yes, there there is this um concern that we have these forever chemicals in the sewer sludge.
• 57:05
  SPEAKER_02: Um, and um, and I I think part of this is a response to a lawsuit that alleged that EPA violated the Clean Water Act by failing to identify these forever chemicals in the sludge that's spread onto farmland.
• 57:23
  SPEAKER_02: Um now I should say the EPA said in a court filing uh last fall that they are not legally required to regulate the toxic chemicals in the sludge that is widely used to fertilize farmland.
• 57:40
  SPEAKER_02: So so but there was a lawsuit in the EPA saying that you know it's not our responsibility, but now they've come out with this report saying yes, it's in there.
• 57:50
  SPEAKER_02: And so it's something.
• 57:54
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, yeah, well, well, uh two things, two things.
• 57:58
  SPEAKER_00: One is one is that there is um there is cutting edge um uh development right now.
• 58:09
  SPEAKER_00: You know, um all all problems lead lead in inevitably to solutions.
• 58:16
  SPEAKER_00: And so there are people now I know who have who at least say they have developed uh microbes, especially fungi, to eat forever chemicals.
• 58:31
  SPEAKER_00: And so they're actually remediating uh uh remediating these fields with these materials, uh, with with uh with living, you know, with with microbes that actually eat them up.
• 58:44
  SPEAKER_00: And so that's a very positive thing.
• 58:46
  SPEAKER_00: And I I I think, yeah, while this is a problem, uh, I think the solution is right around the corner.
• 58:53
  SPEAKER_00: The other thing is that for people that are concerned about, well, I've probably ingested some of this stuff.
• 58:58
  SPEAKER_00: What am I gonna do?
• 58:59
  SPEAKER_00: Um there's mounting evidence that routine sweat.
• 59:04
  SPEAKER_00: Sweating is one of the best ways your body can excrete these kinds of things.
• 59:10
  SPEAKER_00: And so you are not helpless either in the face of these things.
• 59:14
  SPEAKER_00: Um now it doesn't mean you go eat at McDonald's every day, but um, you know, this is all wrapped up with the entire nanoparticle microplastics.
• 59:25
  SPEAKER_00: That's all a part of this.
• 59:26
  SPEAKER_00: And now, you know, think about this, uh, Cena.
• 59:30
  SPEAKER_00: Um, I just I just heard about this in the last week.
• 59:33
  SPEAKER_00: Uh a guy was telling me about he's been delving into microplastics.
• 59:36
  SPEAKER_00: He says, you know how much more microplastics we're ingesting?
• 59:40
  SPEAKER_00: Because food service workers all handle everything now with plastic gloves.
• 59:45
  SPEAKER_00: Used to be they just had to wash their hands, handle it with their with their hands, you know, even as as recently as whatever, five, six years ago.
• 59:52
  SPEAKER_00: Now there is there is no food service uh person handling stuff with without uh little disposable plastic gloves.
• 1:00:04
  SPEAKER_00: Well, that goes on your burger, that goes on your you know, goes on your food, and then you've got now you're ingesting uh these microplastics.
• 1:00:12
  SPEAKER_00: So um, you know, so these toxins are all around, but fortunately, you know, if you're if you have an active routine and you're sweating, um, that is a way to you know to reduce your your load.
• 1:00:24
  SPEAKER_02: Yes, and I'm so glad you brought up about the microbes being able to eat the forever chemicals, um, because that was a story I was working on, actually.
• 1:00:33
  SPEAKER_02: And I just want to add this, I know we're out of time, but boy, Joel, and when we decided that we were gonna go to an hour, remember we were like, are we gonna have enough to talk about?
• 1:00:43
  SPEAKER_02: Well, I didn't even get to four of my breaking news stories.
• 1:00:46
  SPEAKER_02: Like, but I have before we go, I have to share this one because I think this is incredible to piggyback on what you were saying.
• 1:00:54
  SPEAKER_02: What I found was that um over 20 years ago, okay, so this whole microbes being able to eat plastic, right?
• 1:01:02
  SPEAKER_02: Um, over 20 years ago, there's a group of Japanese scientists, and what they did was they went to a garbage dump and they found bacteria munching on plastic, like they were eating bottles and they were eating toys.
• 1:01:16
  SPEAKER_02: These bacteria they they learned could actually break down the plastic and use that plastic as food in order to make more of themselves.
• 1:01:25
  SPEAKER_02: So to make more plastic eating bacteria.
• 1:01:28
  SPEAKER_02: So that was like way back in 2001.
• 1:01:32
  SPEAKER_02: And then more recently, um there was this was in 2024, so this was just last year.
• 1:01:39
  SPEAKER_02: Out of the University of California Riverside, there was an environmental engineering team, and they figured out a bacterial species that could actually eat the forever chemicals, right?
• 1:01:51
  SPEAKER_02: So, not just the plastics, the actual forever chemicals.
• 1:01:53
  SPEAKER_02: They're saying the microorganisms belong to the genus um acetobacterium.
• 1:01:58
  SPEAKER_02: Now, that particular organism, microorganism is um anaerobic, and we haven't found it in humans.
• 1:02:06
  SPEAKER_02: But here's the thing we're finding new stuff all the time.
• 1:02:08
  SPEAKER_02: Just because they haven't found that microbe in humans doesn't mean there's not one in us that has the ability to digest it.
• 1:02:15
  SPEAKER_02: So, just like you said, and we've done a podcast on this, we talked about plastics.
• 1:02:19
  SPEAKER_02: I gave a bunch of different examples of strategies that you can use to help detoxify the body.
• 1:02:24
  SPEAKER_02: But I think what we're gonna learn is back to the basics.
• 1:02:27
  SPEAKER_02: One of the best ways to protect yourself against plastic and forever chemical exposure is gonna be to every day consciously build a robust microbiome.
• 1:02:37
  SPEAKER_02: Like nature is gonna save us from this one.
• 1:02:40
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah.
• 1:02:41
  SPEAKER_00: No, I I I agree.
• 1:02:42
  SPEAKER_00: I agree.
• 1:02:43
  SPEAKER_00: There's not a there's not a toxin, not a pathogen, not a anything that there isn't a remedy.
• 1:02:50
  SPEAKER_00: And that that's very homeopathic, isn't it?
• 1:02:52
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, that that's the basic, you know, uh um that that there's there's always there's always a solution, and it's often a proximate solution.
• 1:03:01
  SPEAKER_00: In other words, it's not from you know, on the other side of the planet.
• 1:03:04
  SPEAKER_00: It's it's it's it's in your in you, near you, it's somewhere uh accessible to you.
• 1:03:11
  SPEAKER_00: And that's just indicative of of a great uh of a great God's design and plan uh to take to take care of us.
• 1:03:19
  SPEAKER_01: I was literally gonna say, yes, the remedies are God given.
• 1:03:24
  SPEAKER_01: So two peas in a pod.
• 1:03:27
  SPEAKER_00: That's right.
• 1:03:28
  SPEAKER_00: That's right.
• 1:03:29
  SPEAKER_00: Well, great.
• 1:03:30
  SPEAKER_00: Well, um, we'll catch up, we'll catch up on the rest.
• 1:03:33
  SPEAKER_00: We are out of time, and uh, we certainly appreciate everyone um uh spending this time with us, investing your time with us.
• 1:03:41
  SPEAKER_00: We hope it's uh both both informative and and um it can be a little bit disconcerting sometimes.
• 1:03:49
  SPEAKER_00: Uh, but there's you know, there's bad things and good things happening.
• 1:03:53
  SPEAKER_00: We want to keep you up with it all.
• 1:03:56
  SPEAKER_00: As for a um as for a question for today, um maybe uh maybe a fair question would be, have you ever personally or do you know someone who's ever had any kind of a quote unquote false positive test for anything, for anything.
• 1:04:18
  SPEAKER_00: And just to just uh start a conversation of false positives exist.
• 1:04:22
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, I'm in in a day in which we just worship at this at this um testing, testing, testing, um, to realize that there are limitations to it and it can't see everything.
• 1:04:35
  SPEAKER_00: Might be an interesting uh might be an interesting anecdotal uh testimonial story to hear from folks.
• 1:04:43
  SPEAKER_01: So I love it.
• 1:04:45
  SPEAKER_00: Thanks for joining us with another uh Beyond Labels podcast, and we look forward to visiting with you again next week.