Paradigms and Demographics was created to disseminate information that defends the pesticide applications industries, especially if that information that isn’t being disseminated by the information deliverers of our industry.
Many of those in leadership positions are completely aware of this kind of information. It isn’t that our leaders are ignorant, it is just they are not crusaders. This is true of the trade journals, it is true of our state and national associations, and it is certainly true of the Ph.D.’s who are part and parcel of our industry. Why? First and foremost, heterodoxy isn’t for the faint of heart. No one likes being the rock in the current. Secondly, they don’t perceive this as part of their job description. Thirdly….and this is by far the most important reason of all….we don’t insist that they do it. Our leaders and information deliverers give us what we want. If we are not willing to demand more from them, and then in turn stand up with them and be prepared to be counted then the fault is ours and ours alone! Why should they take shots for us if we don't care?
On August 12, 2011, an article appeared on the American Council on Science and Health web site entitled, “A real scientific study crosses everything off EWG’s list”. The Environmental Working Group (See also the link to the article, Environmental Working Group: Peddlers of Fear.) has been an constant source of misinformation and scare mongering about pesticides since its inception in 1989 (formally incorporated in 1993). If we are to believe all that they say then everyone should have cancer, brain damage, endocrine disruption problems and …..well….just add any old affliction that pleases you and I am sure they will claim that there is evidence that pesticides cause it.
This brings me to the most important kind of science that everyone needs to use in order to understand all of these claims. The science of observation, i.e., “Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality!” I have used this basic concept since I first started researching all these claims of the green movement. Initially I had a favorable, although erroneous view of environmentalism; whose claims I found to be emotionally charged and unscientific. Very quickly I realized that they spew out lies of omission, lies of commission, misdirection, emotionally charged scaremongering, supposition, junk science studies that are full of weasel words and logical fallacies as the basis for all that they say and do.
The article published by ASCH goes on to say;
“A new study published in the Journal of Toxicology lays to rest any claims about “toxic pesticide residues” that the Environmental Working Group (EWG) publicized with their annual “Dirty Dozen” list. This compilation of “tainted” fruits and vegetables would have everyone scared to touch the majority of produce in the average grocery store. We are pleased, then, that this study, from the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of California, Davis, looked at the dietary exposure of consumers to pesticides found in twelve products at the top of the EWG’s “Dirty Dozen” list and found…little to worry about.”The article continues saying;
“To be more precise, the researchers, led by ACSH advisor Dr. Carl Winter, found that all pesticide exposures were well below established chronic reference doses. Dr. Winter concluded that, not only does exposure to these pesticides pose negligible risk to consumers at the levels they are present, but also, substituting organic forms for conventionally grown ones does not result in any appreciable reduction of risk. And, finally, the researchers write: “the methodology used by the environmental advocacy group to rank commodities with respect to pesticide risks lacks scientific credibility.” In other words, the EWG’s claims are empty.”The chemistry lesson for parents? The "dirty dozen is down to zero".
One of the favorite lines from the green movement, and their acolytes in government when they wish to pass legislation that will seriously restrict pesticides (or any chemical for that matter) is, “it’s for the children”. Unfortunately most of what they are doing ends up being “to the children” versus “for the children”.
We have to start thinking critically about these things. As we look all around the world we see that dystopia (misery, squalor, disease, suffering and death) is rampant where green policies are implemented. They stand against modern food production, pesticides, power production of every type (many in the green movement are now against ethanol, solar and wind energy production as well as oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy), roads, bridges, dams and even the chlorination of drinking water, which is one of the greatest advances in public health ever. They are against everything that makes people live longer and healthier lives. So if dystopia is what results everywhere else the world where their principles are adopted, why would we think it would be different here? Dystopia follows the green movement like the plague follows rats.
We, the pesticide applicators of the world, are the defenders of public health; we are the food providers for the people of the world; we are the true defenders of humanity; we save lives. As one author who was very familiar with exterminators noted; they "are the hunters that keep the tribe healthy".We are part of that thin gray line that stands on the wall and says to society, "no on will harm you on my watch"; and we had better start believing and acting on that fact.