Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

ocba - Re: [ocba] honey vs. syrup

ocba AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Orange County, NC Beekeepers

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: fee AT sprintmail.com
  • Cc: OCBA <ocba AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [ocba] honey vs. syrup
  • Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:43:37 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

Sorry if this posts twice, but it didn't look like it went through the first time.

 

I glanced at the article regarding “our stolen future”.  While they have some points and I agree that far too few chemicals are really thoroughly tested, there are real problems with this article as well.  Cosmetics in particular have been tested so many times over for so many years that unless you have a particular sensitivity, they are really pretty good.  (And that’s from someone who doesn’t wear the stuff.)  The animal models that they have been tested on were chosen because they are good mimics of human sensitivities or they are more sensitive than humans.  Rabbit skin (the species for which most cosmetics have been tested) in particular is known for being far more sensitive than human skin and eyes.  So yes, they can say that if they don't cause problems in rabbits, they won't be a problem for humans.  Plus after the extensive animal testing, they have been tested over many years in humans because we have been using them for many years.  The introduction of new chemicals in cosmetics is rare.  They can advertise “no animal testing” because it’s just a different mix of the same chemicals that have already been tested on animals ad infinitum.

 

Lanette Fee


-----Original Message-----
From: Lewis Cauble
Sent: Feb 22, 2012 9:05 PM
To:
Cc: OCBA
Subject: Re: [ocba] honey vs. syrup

I believe they were referring more to high production volume chemicals and not agricultural pesticides or food additives. 





On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:47 PM, annallys Goodwin-Landher wrote:

I originally read the statistic in a newsletter from Organic Consumers Association in reference to all  chemicals in use today.   I'm unable to find the volume with the direct quote.  In lieu of a citation please check  this website:  http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/myths/safetymyth.htm then click on the Chemistry Industry Archives at the bottom of the page and read  the "old chemical" heading.

In referencing paraquat and conventional sugar let me add that I am concerned about contributing by commission to the destruction of habitat, decimation of subsistence farming in third world countries, and eradication of ecological systems and the carbon footprint required to produce, ship and market the chemicals that are used in conventional farming.

I'm concerned for my health, the health of the bees I keep and the land they work.  

Regards,

Annallys Goodwin-Landher
PO Box 2744 
Chapel Hill, NC 27515
919 933-9109
annallys AT hotmail.com
 



From: lewis AT hivebody.com
To: ocba AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:07:09 -0500
Subject: Re: [ocba] honey vs. syrup

"Please remember that only 5% of all chemicals were tested for safety before being allowed on the market, in use for farming, processing, and as additives  in our food, in our pets food, or sprayed on plants and the ground"

Can we have a citation or reference for this statement?  

_________________________________________ ocba mailing list | North Carolina Beekeeping| http://www.theocba.org/ Manage Your Subscription:http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ocba/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page