> Apparently, the clear evidence of chemical trespass itself
> is disregarded as being in the category of things we call
> "a problem."
"Chemical trespass" is just some term you made up. It has no legal meaning.
And at the detection levels we are talking about, no biological meaning
> By this reasoning, if a person breaks into my home by
> picking the lock, but does not actually break the lock
> in doing so, and proceeds to alarm my family, tells bad
> jokes, has vile body odor, and sit on the furniture...
I think you are setting up a straw-man argument here. These bad habits are
not analogous to chemical residues in your foods, because the residues have
no detectable effects.
> I shall poll everyone I run across for the next 7 days...
Obviously you see this as an ethical issue. Instead of an emotional appeal,
I would like to see a well-reasoned ethical argument.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: