Do herbicides and pesticides survive the distillation process?
A- Yes, they do.
This is really an area that is really misunderstood. You don't necessarily "destroy" some of these chemicals by heating them. Yes, heating does cause a condition where the chemicals are no longer there. What actually happens is this, the heat causes steam, anything less than that 300 (more or less) molecular weight will be carried off by the steam and dispersed into the air. Think; your little vaporizer that you put Vicks or something like that. That is an open system In the distillation process, you have a closed system. It doesn't "disperse" out into the air. It is held captive and cooled then the liquid is collected. This liquid contains all that comes over, in either the EO or in the distillate water. It can be in either the water or the oil. It is easier, in my opinion, to detect them in the oil than in the water. This is why we walk very carefully when it comes to the distillate waters. Most cides are made to disperse thoroughly in water.
Q- That's what I thought. Thank you. One more question... does the GC/MS test for the cides?
A- No, the typical GC/MS DOES NOT test for the presence of the ..cides. It MAY in some cases reveal certain individual constituents. Most of the time, an experienced person may be able to ascertain that there are some of these ..cides based on the ratios of what is being shown. The reason for this is because by the time the plant has been exposed to the cide, then gone through the process, the original ..cide has degraded and broke down to secondary forms of the ..cide, which in some cases are far worse than the original source of the contamination. But in either case, the plant has been mutated in some form and so the DNA/RNA has been compromised and no one is any the wiser. We as humans are not really any different than a plant in this respect.
Q- Thank you. So, in reality, there really isn't a way to tell if a grower used pesticides on their say Lavender crop. We just need to trust the companies that we purchase from to know that they are being vigilant in purchasing a good product...
A- Not exactly. In theory, they have to report what is used based on the Organic certification group that is attesting to the honesty of the certification. As I said, an experienced person can pick up from a simple GC/MS report the possible contaminates. However, only an experienced lab testing for specifics can actually determine what cide was used and to what extent. However, for example, if Glyphosate was used, then one can figure that it was actually used on that crop or previously on that actual plot of land. But if a chemical like Dicamba is detected, then that does not mean it was used on the crop. Diacambia has been known to drift, and drift over a longer distance than just a next-door neighbor. Some Organic certifiers and groups allow for absolutely no cides. But USDA allows for use of cides if certain conditions are met. That is in part why when people quote and worship the USDA's Organic Certification, I just roll my eyes. I wish it wasn't that way, but such is the reality. However, one must not just think of "what has been used ON the crop". One must consider what has been used previously to the seed being planted. As a side note here, I do not promote the use of these ..cides, but I can see using some of them under certain conditions as in my opinion, the alternative is worse and in some cases, the chemical isn't that bad. But on the other hand, there are ..cides and other chemicals being used out there that freaks the daylights out of me, yet many people just carry on about their merry way in ignorance. Yet when someone like me brings it to their attention, they run us out of town and we become a hiss and a byword, aka; known by a series of vulgar names. lol. We aren't even going to bring in airborne pollution. That is another discussion for another day. Remember, this discussion is about the cides, in a generalized discussion.
Q- Well... that is pretty interesting. I had never heard that before.
A- Here is a commentary, In many of these EO related groups, we have seen companies like YL get the snot beat out of them over some contaminates in their oils as detected by certain labs. These labs do the far more extensive testing that the typical GC//MS testing might cover. The companies like YL stand by their "in house or 3rd. party testing" that shows their product is pure, in fact, more pure than pure is possible. In my opinion, I do not believe these various companies intentionally contaminate their oils with actual "bad" stuff. Perhaps some "less than honest", in my perspective, when it comes to declaring on the label as to what is actually on the inside. As far as their testing reveals, they are showing purity. But more extensive testing reveals a different picture. These impurities took place long before they got the oil. In some cases several generations back in the plant's history. Here is another one. This is sort of cool, from the company that produces and distributes the cides. For example; Glyphosate degrades down to AMPA, then the AMPA degrades down to Nitrogen and C02. The plant was given the Frankensteinized treatment and then later on, once the degrading has taken place you will only see evidence of the effects of elevated levels of Nitrogen and C02. No one sees the mutation of the plant as evidenced in the EO's GC/MS scan. Observation of the actual plant might reveal something, but not a typical GC/MS scan on an EO sample. Since the application of Glyphosate was applied before the plant starting its process of development, a lot has evolved before you get to the EO. Hence, the EO will likely be compromised in some way. None of the psychopaths out there pushing the oils knowing not much more than some political propaganda by-line created by someone that really knows nothing, but thinks they know it all if you can see my idea, will have a clue. lol. This "degrading" process can take anywhere from days to years. Several conditions have to be met in order for the degrading to start and continue the whole process. This is in part why one study will make one claim and another study will make a different claim and then a 3rd. the study makes an even different claim. See the pattern here? They are all correct in their discoveries. What they are talking about is all of the conditions and activities going on behind the scenes. Of course, what is published in the end is by and large, and in reality, colored by who the funding party is and what they want. Another factor here to consider is that all of the studies in nutrition, medicine, yadda yadda, are really just anecdotal at best, on a good day. The reason is when you are dealing with biological entities, there are just way too many factors that are unknown and cannot be controlled for, that it really makes the study suspect, as to the end conclusions. For example, with mainstream medicine, if they can get the product to work on 50% of the population, they feel like they are successful with that product. So not all medicine works on all people, and I might add the same way across the board. The newer natural element ones do have a higher rate of % of success. lol. Also, one must keep in mind that not all labs test for everything. Most any lab out there will only test for a specific field of items or a generalized field. You send a sample to a lab that doesn't test for a specific field, then they won't detect anything from that field. You can connect some dots here, lol.
Oh, BTW an understanding of the Law of the Minimum and the Law of Selective Starvation needs to be understood and how it applies to plants in order for a person to get their heads around these ideas.
Q- Well then, that is the excuse I will use... I have no idea what the Law of the Minimum is lol.
A- Excuse??? LOL. Not sure which one, lol. BTW; I have done a write up in this Law. I haven't finished the one on Selective Starvation yet.
End of discussion.