Market Farming

[Leigh <lh AT pressroom.com>]

Hello Willie,

As you no doubt know, the problem with carcinogens is that there is 
no smoking gun effect. People don't drink water contaminated with 
Alar and die the next day.  What I would look for to determine health 
risk is examine the rates of cancers to people living in areas where 
suspected carcinogens have been used 10, 20 and 30 years before.  Of 
course, neither of us would want to be that person who comes down 
with a cancer that could have been prevented by not using the 
chemical in the first place. (that's why we extrapolate from animal 
testing-not perfect but most humans have this thing about not being 
used as test animals).

I just looked up ALAR  in the Pesticide Action Network's data base. 
Currently, there is no agricultural use for ALAR.  The only approved 
use is as a growth regulator in a 'manufactoring' environment.  By 
that, I assume, is mean a greenhouse.

I think the problem with the ALAR 'scare' was the way that the 
original news covered the story.  Making people think that if they 
ate an apple with ALAR residue they were going to shortly up and die. 
The literature never said this.  What it said is that ALAR was a 
carcinogenic.  'It had been used, but the evidence suggests we 
probably don't want to use it anymore.'

The question is:  do we need something as powerful as daminozide for 
basically cosmetic results (increasing size, color and firmness of 
fruit).

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be safe than sorry, especially 
when using a powerful chemical agent.
--
   (\      (\      (\      (\      (\
  {|||8-          {|||8-          {|||8-          {|||8-          {|||8-
   (/      (/      (/      (/      (/
        http://www.bullrunfarm.com/