On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:10:47 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .

If it's negligable, why raise the issue at all?


Because the organic weenies make a *huge* song and dance about the supposed
carcinogenic properties of certain chemicals, whereas the stuff they
actually eat (and are worried about contaminating!) can be 50x or so *more*
carcinogenic than the chemical they are making the song and dance about!
True, both are in reality probably negligible*, which leads to two
questions, "so why do the organic weenies make such a song and dance about
it"?

It largely boils down to a lack of confidence in those who produce the
chemicals - without the lobbying of an alternative standpoint one
wonders what we'd now be putting on our veg.
I don't suppose that the recent withdrawal of a large number of
agricultural chemicals from the market came about through the efforts
of the manufacturers.

And " but if the weenies are so concerned about deadly chemicals why do
they eat something far more damgerous?"

If they eat things that are that dangerous then it would be folly to
add to that danger.
And, of course, people have been eating such produce for thousands of
years - I'd think that by now the empirical data alone would suggest
that a diet of fruit and veg isn't going to send you to an early
grave.
As regards synthetic compounds, how can we tell what the long term
effect will be when we they haven't actually been around for that
long?

*In fact they may even be zero, since there is a serious issue with the
basic testing process used

Oh right, so even the basic testing procedure is flawed.
I wonder what else they haven't got right.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk