On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:32:43 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:
In message , Stephen Howard
writes
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.
Which proves what? That a balanced diet is better for you.
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 who puts pressure on them? Not the agrochem companies, that's for
sure.
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.
Oh, I agree - and to some extent that's the price you pay for
converting certain kinds of foods that used to be knocked up 'as and
when' into convenience foods.
No-one keeps a fresh mayo knocking about for very long.
Natural does not mean safe. There are plenty of very nasty natural
pathogens and chemical defences. Nature is red in tooth and claw.
That's a fact that most organic gardeners are well aware of.
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.
Most of it's down to the prep - most people know you have to boil red
kidney beans, avoid green potatoes, don't eat Blewits raw etc etc.
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.
Agreed again, I've read there are concerns about the use of soya
products in children's foods in particular.
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.
Everyone's gonna make mistakes, the question you have to ask is who's
going to make the biggest mistake? Are we worried about toxic celery?
No. Are we worried about PCBs? Yeah.
*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.
So being concerned about the environment means you have to walk about
in sackcloth? Making decisions about what you eat and where it comes
from means living in a hut?
And don't you think there's room for improvement in your 'brave new
world'?
Take, for example, the Gov's policy of setting a lower rate vehicle
licence for smaller engines.
I inherited a Beetle a couple of years ago - 1200cc. Because it has a
dinky engine I pay half the licence fee. And yet my old Cavalier at
1800cc does half as much again in MPG, burns considerably less oil,
and is a far safer vehicle all round...and I pay the full licence on
it. Now that's not joined-up thinking.
There's always room for improvement - and there will always be a large
group of people who are going to question the corporate line.
Regards,
--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk