From: Entropyfoe@aol.com
Date: Tue Aug 24 1999 - 20:04:23 MDT
Thanks Brian D. Williams for your analysis. Mine is similar, not that I am
'afraid of roundup', or against genetic engineering. Your point is well
taken, these seem to benefit big agribiz most, and consumers secondarily.
While I thank Robert J. Bradbury for looking up the LD50 of Roundup, this
misses my point. It is not necessarily just the roundup, but the
opportunity to build in plant resistance to all of these chemicals, but
ignoring the human resistance to the chemicals. Just because so many mg/kg
kills half the rats, does not mean that lower doses are safe for humans. The
EPA is finding with many biocides, that for example children are much more
succeptable to harmful effects, or that low doses do not kill by direct
toxicicty, but some compounds act as hormones at very low levels causing
endocrine disruption. A simplistic LD50 analysis ignores interactions among
dozens of chemical adulterants in our diet. Often as with agent orange, it
is not the main compound which is ultra bad, but by products from the organic
synthesis (dioxins) in minute quantities that are worse than the main
product. The issue is complex I agree, and I have a BS in chemistry, so I am
no chemophobe. But in the interest of life extension, less chemicals in the
diet that my species has not had time to evolve with is better, at least this
is a cautious approach.
So, yes, we should support accurate labling, so consumers have free choice,
we should have more biotech research on humans to reisist cancer and other
chemical degredation. Monsanto and its share holders are second to the
health of the population [and me].
-Jay
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:52 MST