When talking about food safety in the U.S. versus Europe, we often mention how Europe uses the "Precautionary Principle" - an idea that basically means "let's make sure something's safe before we use it." Seems sensible, right? In fact, you'd HOPE we're doing something rather similar to that here. But we're not. In a rather EXTREME sort of way. Check THIS out:
The Environmental Protection Agency said it would order the manufacturers of 67 pesticides to test whether their products disrupt the hormonal system of humans or animals. Congress passed a bill mandating such tests in 1996, but the agency took years to develop them and ensure their validity, officials said. The agency said that the 67 pesticides were chosen because humans and animals are widely exposed to them, not because they are necessarily the most likely disruptors of endocrinal functions. About 1,000 substances will eventually be tested, said James J. Jones, acting assistant administrator for prevention, pesticides and toxic substances. The results are due back from manufacturers around the end of next year.
Really? This stuff's never been tested? Yet we've been using it anyway? Let me tell you a little secret. The pesticide industry was born out of the chemical weapons industry. They used to test war gases on bugs to see if they would be effective on humans. After WWI, when the U.S. wanted to get rid of its Chemical Warfare Service, those who researched war gasses advertised "peaceful" uses of gas as a means of keeping themselves employed. One such peaceful use was making pesticides. In other words, if a chemical is deadly to bugs, there's a REALLY GOOD CHANCE it's not good for people. And we didn't even TEST to see if perhaps that was the case???
And now we are testing, but we're letting the manufacturers do it? I don't mind making them pay for it, but - would I be crazy to suggest that perhaps they might not be very independent and that the results might be skewed in their favors? |
