I think we'd be better off on making sure we actually manage to feed our soldiers at all before we start trying to get them an all organic diet.
I managed to find the original article, and I'll share somebody else's comment for now.
I’m a combat veteran with a MS in nutritional immunology and an MPH. I found this article to be informative but lacks clear connections between cause and outcome. There are numerous mentions of substances found in US meals that are banned in other countries as though that implies an acceptance of their toxicity. While it may be the case, a substance’s ban in another country really has no bearing on its health effects. That said there is a striking lack of citations to show definitively the impact of a given compound. There are also numerous mentions of food and compounds being manufactured in or imported from China, suggesting tampering with the agricultural supply chain, but this was not investigated. Ultimately this is fairly comprehensive research but lacks clear hypotheses and conclusions. The author’s appeal to authority of individuals who are referred to as experts but don’t elaborate on their credentials. They also speak to the MAHA approach to health which makes this publication highly biased. There are also mentions of food contamination stemming from the previous administration with no further elaboration, as though to suggest the Biden administration is responsible for contamination of military food. This research did not indicate where the meals were sourced, at much point in the supply chain they were sourced, or the manufacturers or growers. IMO this is propaganda wrapped as research.
Now that I'm at a computer, I can expand a bit.
The article mentions that everything tested contained pesticides, but it never delves into what that actually means. Pulling the data, I can see that MRE Chili with Beans tested positive with trace amounts of some compounds and 1.1 ppb (parts per billion) of Boscalid; therefore, it is positive for pesticides. Most pesticides have a Maximum Residue Limit (MRL), which is the maximum amount of a chemical that can remain on crops; it varies by item, but all limits are well below what's considered a dangerous consumption rate (usually 10-10,000 times). Going back to my Chili, I can see that the MRL for Boscalid is 2.5 ppm (parts per million). Doing some math, that means the Chili has 0.044% of the MRL allowed for beans.
I didn't investigate every item, but I would bet the pattern repeats. For another example, they specifically target the fungicide Pyrimethanil, stating that it "may be a carcinogen in humans, causing tumors and liver damage". The link to the paper is an EU study that finds Pyrimethanil is not considered persistent or bioaccumulative, dietary exposure would not exceed safe toxicology thresholds, and that it may have little environmental impact. So how did MAHA moms conclude it was unsafe for humans? Because they extrapolated from the rats and canine tests. The paper did toxicity tests to find the level of consumption that caused adverse effects. The "safe" consumption limit was 30mg/kg body weight for dogs and 1.3mg/kg body weight for rats. In other words, you've got to eat a shit ton of the chemical as a percentage of your body mass, daily for years, to see adverse effects, according to the study.
MAHA Moms consider ANY level of pesticide to be detrimental, so that is how they are presenting the data.
There are some other things, like using their own "safe" level of glyphosate consumption to say all of the food tested above that, trying to tie trace measurements of trenbolone in meat to increased violence in Americans, and using EPA water limits on metals to compare foods against instead of the FDA measurements. (I've gotta run, I'll be back to update more.)
