E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor wrote:
>
> Folks: as usual, Chuck Benbrook has provided useful insight and
> evidence from his years of analysis and thought on this topical
> subject. I would simply reinforce his thoughts as follows:
>
> 1. the outcome of the study was predetermined by the way the
> question was framed at the outset;
>
> 2. the only health risk studied was cancer (despite evidence of
> other adverse impacts on human health, including endocrine disrupter-
> effects on reproductive fitness, behavior, and immune system
> dysfunction - many of which are unknown to the public at large);
>
> 3. risk is assessed from individual pesticides, one at a
> time, despite the fact that multiple biocide residues are typically
> found on fruits and vegetables (and drinking water); and
>
> 4. evidence is literally not available even for this slim zone of
> inference (cancer risk from an residues of an individual biocide) for
> many biocides, or for continuous small doses as against large, short-
> term exposures
>
> Each of these weaknesses of our existing database (the one reviewed
> by this panel of experts) was profiled back in 1989 in the NAS
> publication Alternative Agriculture, edited by my former chair, John
> Pesek. So, while it is entirely correct to reach the conclusions
> reached, such conclusions will be of comfort only to people who do
> not realize how limited is the foundation upon which such calming
> pronouncements are based.
>
> It is interesting to contrast the tone and direction of the findings
> of this environmental tox group with that of the USGS in their fresh
> new report on biocide contamination of surface and groundwater. One
> of their main conclusions is that we do not have enough information
> to begin to interpret most of what they have found - and what they
> have found is scary enough even now.
>
> In the USGS report, the *lack of evidence of harm* is NOT inferred to
> mean the *absence of harm*, as is shamelessly done in the ACS report
> on cancer. Rather, they argue for the need for additional research
> to attempt to unravel the risks - although I personally tend towards
> the conclusions reached in Benbrook's great book Pest Management at
> the Crossroads, Theo Colborn's Our Stolon Future, and others -
> namely, it will never be possible to tease apart all of these
> impacts, but sufficient evidence exists to support the need for
> fundamental changes in how we grow crops, control household pests,
> and manage our lawns to avoid or greatly minimize biocide use
> entirely.
>
> And Chuck's point on comparing one kind of risk with another (e.g.
> tobacco smoking) is very apt - these folks have done a real
> disservice to the society depending on them for expert advice. Ann
>
> ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
> Dr. E. Ann Clark
> Associate Professor
> Crop Science
> University of Guelph
> Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
> Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
> FAX: 519 763-8933
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".