Laserfiche WebLink
<br />they simply do not like the outcome and <br />are challenging both the program and the <br />studies themselves. We have seen some <br />evidence recently that the anti-pesticide <br />advocacy groups ate moving away from <br />the old charge that 2,4-D is a <br />"carcinogen." Perhaps they are now <br />faced with too much data to the contrary. <br />They seem to moving toward newer <br />charges that, either 2,4D contains highly <br />toxic contaminants, or it maybe a <br />potential toxicant implicated, along with <br />thousands of other chemicals, in a new <br />and very vaguely defined disease known <br />as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity <br />(MCS). <br />With regard to the contaminant charge, <br />the very numerous animal feeding studies <br />were all done with 2,4D from regular <br />production batches, and contain <br />whatever contaminants are in the <br />commercial product. If 2,4D contains <br />"htghly toxic conraminanra;' this Surely <br />would have affected the outcome of <br />animal feedwg studies. With regard to <br />MCS, one medical expert has recently <br />called it "a name looking for a disease." <br /> <br />If it is indeed a disease, there is a dearth <br />of hard data to support it <br />2,4D has been extensively used <br />now for fifty years. For a pesticide, h <br />has an excellent safety record. It's <br />amazing that after all these years new <br />charges are still forthcoming. <br />On the brighter side, there is increasing <br />evidence that the general public is <br />growing tired of this debate. Although <br />raising new "alarms" has long proven <br />effective during the fiord-raising or <br />membership drives of advocacy groups, <br />you can only cry "Wolff " so many times. <br />'The task force comprises the group <br />of major manufacturers and formula- <br />tors of 2,4D products that jointly <br />fimded the 270 research studies required. <br />