MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
A Peaceful Place[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  �?•�?·´`·.·�? �?/A>  
  Copyrights  
  Disclaimer  
  �?•�?·´`·.·�? �?/A>  
  Messages  
  General  
  Articles - Misc.  
  ADHD,ADD, Autism  
  �?Allergies �?/A>  
  Alternative & +  
  § Arthritis §  
  Depression  
  �?Diet �?/A>  
  �?Exercise �?/A>  
  Eyes  
  Fitness and Exercise  
  �? FM & CF �?/A>  
  Headaches  
  Herbs etc  
  IBS & Other DD's  
  �?•�?·´`·.·�?�?/A>  
  Liver  
  Lung Health  
  MS �?/A>  
  ◄Mycoplasms�?/A>  
  Osteoporosis  
  Pain-Coping  
  Skin Disorders  
  Sleep  
  �?Supplements  
  �?Toxins �?/A>  
  Humor �?/A>  
  Household ☼¿☼  
  Mind-Body-Spirit  
  Pictures  
    
  �?Links �?/A>  
  Snags  
  Sources & Resources  
  ≈☆≈E-Cards ≈☆�?/A>  
  Pesticides Exp  
  �?Organic Living  
  Organic Gardens  
  See the Most Recent Posts  
  
  
  Tools  
 
Pesticides Exp : Pesticide Industry Myths
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 2 in Discussion 
From: Rene  (Original Message)Sent: 9/21/2006 6:24 PM
 


To All Concerned About Pesticide Safety:

Sometimes misinformation is repeated so often that it sounds like fact. Such is the case with the rampant misinformation trumpeted by opponents of tougher health standards for pesticides.

I urge you to read this report, Pesticide Industry Propaganda: The Real Story, so that you will know the truth about the threats that pesticides pose to public health.

The report covers eight myths about pesticides that you have heard repeatedly in the media, including claims that animal tests are irrelevant to protecting humans, and that a person would have to eat some huge amount of food to be exposed to pesticides at anywhere near the levels that produced toxic effects in animals.

In fact, the same companies that criticize animal studies, support them when the findings show their products to be safe. And if humans were exposed to the high doses of pesticides animals receive in experiments, the health effects would be catastrophic; a huge proportion of the human population would suffer cancer, nerve damage, reproductive or other health problems, depending on the pesticide. Of course, human exposure to pesticides in food and water is lower precisely to avoid these results.

Other popularly reported myths include:


  • "We are winning the war on cancer" -- we are not; cancer incidence rates are up dramatically, especially for children.
    "Low doses of pesticides can't hurt anyone, even children" -- not so, according to a five year study by the National Academy of Sciences.

  • "Natural carcinogens are more common than the synthetic ones introduced by man, therefore our concern about pesticides is misguided" -- not true, according to mainstream scientists (not to mention the fact that we should avoid additional risks to public health whenever possible).

  • Truth is a precious and important tool. Pesticides in food, water and many other sources threaten our children's health. We should use the truth -- not propaganda -- to protect our children from toxic substances.

The organizations listed above are dedicated to improving children's protection from pesticides. Please contact them with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,


David P. Rall, M.D., Ph.D.
Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (1971-1990)
Founder and Director, National Toxicology Program (1978-1990)
Assistant Surgeon General (1971-1990)

From:   http://www.ewg.org/reports/Myths/Myth_home.html




First  Previous  2 of 2  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 2 of 2 in Discussion 
From: ReneSent: 9/21/2006 6:31 PM


The chemical and food industries care about the bottom line, even if that means fostering myths and distorting science to convince the public and policy makers not to regulate pesticides.

The truth is that animal tests are valid predictors of human cancer and other health risks, that we can grow affordable food with far fewer pesticides, and that pesticide residues in our diet pose an unnecessary--and preventable--risk to which children are particularly vulnerable.


1. Animal tests of pesticides don't predict human cancer risks because (real truth is:)

2. The amount of pesticide residues in food or water is so small it poses no health risks. Not true. [more]

3. Cancer rates are decreasing. Not true. [more]

4. Nobody has ever been hurt by exposure to pesticides at the low doses found in food and water. Not true. [more]

5. Natural carcinogens in food are more dangerous than pesticide residues, so pesticides are not worth regulating. Not true. [more]

6. Alar on apples was a "scare," indicative of environmentalists' use of emotion and scare tactics, not sound science. Not true. [more]

7. Restricting the use of pesticides will cause food shortages and raise the price of food. Not true. [more]

8. Pesticides cost money, so farmers currently use as few pesticides as possible. Not true. [more]

 
To learn more :  
http://www.ewg.org/reports/Myths/Industry_myths.html