On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:29:15 -0500, Siobhan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  I see this as relevant to this list in that our food supply is affected by these environmental problems.

But this argument can be used to justify ANY discussion.

Discussion of models of automobiles can be justified by the fact that we use
cars to go to the supermarket to buy our food.   Thus all car repair questions
are justified.    And also anything pertaining to gasoline shortages, oil
refining, OPEC, government oil exploration, etc.

And since government oil exploration in the US would change depending on the
administration, then all political discussion can thereby be justified,
including Florida vote counts and Monica Lewinsky.

This is the sort of justification used by people to forward "Stop the Internet
Tax" messages to EVERY mailing list - because "it affects you since you use a
computer".  None of the people sending those messages bother to check the facts
and then they would know that the whole thing is a hoax.

>  I'm not sure
>why we should be concerned about the alleged lack of scientific proof, as the so-called scientific proof we  have
>about food and our health is the very thing causing illnesses, diseases, and premature death.

Actually, the situation is very parallel.   We were told to cut our fat intake,
based on scientific evidence that did not exist.   Similarly, we are being told
to do various different things for the environment, based on scientific evidence
that does not exist.  I won't go into details, because as I mentioned above,
it's not on-topic for this list (and it's easily found on the web by anyone who
doesn't swallow whole what they are told by the media).


--
Cheers,

Ken
[log in to unmask]