In message , Stephen Howard
writes
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.

You would do better to worry about fruit trees and peeling your fruit.
There is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that certain regions with
heavy fruit growing like apples in Belgium have abnormally higher cancer
rates.

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.

More likely due to studies by MAFF and its ilk.

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.

Sometimes the additives significantly *decrease* the risk from an
intrinsically dangerous product. Preservative (chemical) free peanut
butter being a good example where extremely toxic natural fungi can
flourish if you fail to store it exactly right (and even that just
delays the onset).

Same sort of problem for herbs in oil. Without exactly the right pH
there is a very good chance of bacterial growth forming the natural
deadly botulinum toxin.

The threat from the "nasty synthetic" chemical additives in these
instances is negligible compared with the absolutely lethal consequences
of the natural toxin.

Natural does not mean safe. There are plenty of very nasty natural
pathogens and chemical defences. Nature is red in tooth and claw.

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.

Not necessarily. Plenty of things are eaten that are marginally safe.
Bamboo, bracken and Fugu (puffer fish) being among the more extreme.
Soya bean is pretty much on the edge too since it is heavily loaded with
natural oestrogen mimics but they seem only to mess up rodent
reproduction.

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?

You can't necessarily but then it is no different to all the other
natural chemicals that are out there. At least modern synthetics are
tested for toxicity and other risks. Natural celery has been
accidentally bred that gave all the pickers serious contact dermatitis.

*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.

I reckon we should deprive the weenies of every synthetic chemical for a
week or two and see how they get on. That means no car, refined oil,
plastics, metals, glass, batteries, antiseptics, antibiotics.

Welcome to the stone age...

Regards,
--
Martin Brown