The same 'dangerousness' and powers were actually responsible that Viagra could become 'Viagra'. The research and development of Sildenafil originally had the goal to obtain a new drug against hypertension and angina pectoris. The action against erectile dysfunction is actually an accidental discovery and was NOT plan of development. And yes endocrine disruptors were also not plan of scientific development. Just wanted again to point on (human) perspective. There is an original plan and there is a 'side' effect later. Once we had a pesticide to preserve plants, later we've got an endocrine disruptor. (DDT). An example that turned to the bad.... Important is to know that all these are dynamic processes and the classification is changing during time and by that because of new experiences. Viagra also has side effects. It's all about to react on new knowledge and experiences and to change the categorizations and way of use in time! Therefore we need constant observations and proper research ALL the time...and the will to recognize that benefits can turn to the opposite (and vice versa). It's no problem to have the powers to develop a certain substance / class of substances. But it's a problem to close the eyes when results are indicating that the originally 'good' effects that prevailed are not anymore and the side effects become the major effects. And yes the lawmakers have a job here to do, too.
This is all well known, Yen. You could have also mentioned penicillin, for instance but you didn't. Telling... Besides, this is beside the point. The point is that you really missed THE point by a long shot. It's not a kind of job which is "also" for lawmakers but primarily for the lawmakers, as well as both general and professional public sphere - given the power science and technology have nowadays. The point IS that all of those MUST be PROPERLY THOUGHT THROUGH first, then OVERSEEN and handled with due care and diligence, in serious long term trials, double blind etc. I.e. rigorous, seriously and scrupulously conducted procedures - so, planned by the lawmakers and best scientists, preventing horror, poor, short-sighted research and so forth, i.e. complete and thorough democratic and scientific controls exercised over this part of Humanity, based on the best ethical and philosophical principles Humanity came up with. Military included! Especially the military "minds"!!! Then, the gross affair that was Thalidomide, for instance, would not have happened (I remember very well your earlier remarks on the subject and I am glad you made a bit of a journey in the right direction but it still lacks the philosophical grounding and scientific clarity) and Viagra would have been cool - since users would have been properly informed to die with a smile on their face, not live in misery without their limbs and whatnot... (And without carrying our Human trials in poor and poorly educated communities of "third world", without informed consent, as sociopathic pharma corps keep doing it, as we all well know!!!) To the point: don't blissfully "forget" that most pesticides etc. have their origins in warmongering "science", as poisons to be used to kill Humans in their millions, such is our potential for sociopathy!!! We must stop scientists selling their souls to Capitalism's worst wet dreams of wanton destruction in all directions, for as long as we have a shred of Humanity left in us. Just look at the latest in war science & tech that we can find out about - distopians, eat your heart out!!! We need our insulin but we do NOT need killer robots, bio-weapons of mass extinction, chemical horrors to obliterate Humanity, genetic manipulation to create Übermensch (killers), ever more powerful nuclear arsenal to demolish every living thing on Earth, FFS!!! And some scientists are all too happy to oblige the "military minds", musing afterwards how they "have become the destroyer of worlds"... Well, too f*#&ing late!!!!! The difficulty lies in some lawmakers also being all too happy to play the sociopathic power games, of course... Enter us, the enlightened Humanity, each and every citizen aware of these developments saying "Enough!!!!" Scientist with conscience before everybody else! "For evil to win it only takes the good men doing nothing!" Ergo, one must properly contextualise and historicise these issues (primarily) in (most potent late) Capitalism (but also in early Capitalism in some parts of the world, as well as "Sur-Real Socialism" and pre-Modern Feudalism in other parts of the globe), in order to understand the potential for destruction we carry with ourselves and then do what we must to prevent it escalating the way it is, as we speak, in a rampant race of power-hungry stampede right into oblivion...
By that I wanted to say that they often do not accept responsibility...they either are lacking of professional expertise or they have opposite interests (lobbyist). Current example: (Convenience) foods have too much sugar which makes us sick. There is scientific evidence, but no laws to regulate sugar content yet. Some producers started an own action and advertise own sugar reduced foods. Their food analysts can accept responsibilities and do realize changes without to wait for law changes.... You cannot wait for the lawmakers all the time until changes happen. Own responsibility of scientists is required as well. And I'd say this is primary.... Yes some have like Tabun, but not DDT. I have chosen DDT because it was really perceived as panacea that time. Lice control, mosquito control (anti malaria), to fight the potato bug and to fight typhus....later then plant protection... DDT is a classic example how a panacea turned into a toxicant...(perceptional)
No field has progressed as far as chemistry has, both in understanding and analyzing reactions and in being able to predict the outcome of reactions. And some great things have come out of the chem lab. Some terrible things as well. Apart from that, there's no substitute for the wisdom of the consumer. And the consumer has to choose between right and wrong. We know that tobacco is bad for us. Nicotine is a poison generated by the plant itself to kill insects. The same holds true for caffeine. Yet many of us enjoy a cup of coffee and a smokey in the morning (guilty as charged ) That opens a legal quagmire; do we have the right to tell people not to do something? In some cases yes. Others, no. We need to get rid of the superstitions and fears of the people at large by teaching them about chemistry. Not by hiding the knowledge, but by showing our youth that safety comes first. Always. That holds true for firearms as well. "better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." I watched a documentary on Gerhardt Schrader. His wife committed suicide because she couldn't stand the idea of killing so many people with chemical weapons. So sad. In his defense, TABUN opened the door for for organo-phosphate pesticide research. Look at Substance 'N' (Chlorine trifluoride) It was such a terrible weapon that the Nazis abandoned it. Now, it's used to clean semiconductor making machinery.
I have a simple own rule for that.... If the 'something' concerns my own (health) alone, then no... Anyway there should be info available to make an own proper opinion and what are the alternatives.... Finally every individual makes an own categorization based on knowledge / experiences. And to most there is nothing more but to 'believe' what scientists say...or to try to comprehend their conclusions, which may vary, though.... And everybody of us makes an own benefit-risk analysis....and there is individual conscience, but also conscience with social relation....all these are returning processes with different results during lifetime.../ age. We consume unhealthy stuff being fully aware of it....more or less. I party'd a lot when I was 22-28 years and I didn't have a 'healthy' look that time. But I never regret that time... We are taking medicine with side effects. Or we do not this time and stay away from medication. We smoke....(in the past everywhere, now only outside without to bother the others).... etc,etc..... This applies very well to the topic, too....but the difference is that global warming affects all of us and the reactions on individual actions are not limited to the individual alone... I think important is to have an alternative choice. It always becomes problematic when there is no alternative....
Errmmm, no, "ordinary folk" do NOT have the expertise to understand the consequences of their actions from a point of view of food or packaging, detergents, pesticides, herbicides, genetic manipulation..., hence a properly conducted LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IS PRIMARY! Wake up, people, we live in a complex world and we need to have these minimal protections enacted in laws, procedures and processes of democratic societies, plus institutions which will test and enforce these laws! All else is poppy-cock, sorry! I have no doubt that judging from your position you could (for instance, Yen) do exactly that. But c'mon, you really should know better and be able to put yourself in other people's shoes at least minimally... When you see a food label and you "must" be able to recognise all the "natural ingredients" with names as long as your arm... Aha - of course, everyone should... Jesus Marx wept!
I've put myself in other people's shoes. I posted about 'every individual' and 'everybody of us' and 'we'... I said it gets problematic if there is no alternative. People who want to avoid those 'natural ingredients' can cook fresh meals on their own. They can buy fresh vegetables, meat etc. from local producers and cook every day fresh meals. They can get informed what the producers use and how they grow their vegetables. And most people who have already this awareness are doing that. Nobody needs new laws to recognize that freshly cooked meals are healthier than convenience foods. But there are still many consumers who simply want to have the cheapest price possible and cheap convenience food with little efforts to 'cook'. Or have a look at the price of meat, how cheap you can get chicken or pork for instance. It's a sick low price! Some good cheese is more expensive! To offer cheap products, the producers need efficient methods and that comes along with using even those 'natural ingredients' and pesticides to have their fruits and vegetables 'preserved' from loss. The mass meat produces are using 'special' additions like antibiotics to have most of animals survived. The consumers need to change their consuming behaviour to have influence on the market and by that on the way how things are produced.
I've grown up in the countryside. My uncles were farmers. I know times where meat was something you did (could) not eat every day. They have bred / grown up their animals to have own meat. They also had grown vegetables and fruits such as potatoes and apples. On particular Saturdays, for instance, a pig has been slaughtered. The entire family came together. And everybody was involved, me also. All the products have been made by the local butcher around the corner. My granddad and my father had a big garden where they have grown vegetables and some fruits. I still know how things are originally tasting...and I like to cook myself... As kids we often were outside. We enjoyed to steal fruits freshly from the trees. Nothing better than to sit on a cherry three and to eat its cherries. Although I like big metropolises I am still living in the countryside. We still have small shops where you can buy vegetables and meat coming from local animals / known producers. And you can get info..but we also have supermarkets where you can buy mass produced meat from somewhere nobody knows from where it comes. I like good cuisine. With good cuisine I also mean good fixings. It belongs to my idea of good life. I want to support good products by buying those. It's finally one reason why I am working to earn money. I want to support those who are away from mass producing.
So do I, Yen - but who can grow their own food today, in urban surroundings in particular? Who has the money for a plot, the time to do it, the knowledge or the energy, having worked all day and not only if they are proletarians working physically all day long etc.??? My gran and I were even making plum brandy together, never mind getting crops indoors or getting rid of pests, feeding the animals and so on... But have you tried buying a plot in London? Nothing compares to freshly picked food never treated with pesticides, herbicides, only natural fertilisers, treated with love and affection, made by your gran right there and then, including pasta with fresh eggs but... You are now - with such a proposition/advice - fast getting yourself in line for a Nobel prize of some sort of other, like physics, how to be in 2-3 places at the same time, pay the mortgage and get another one to grow your veggies and so on... Stranger things have happened: Obama got one for peace(!!) never having done a darn thing to deserve it and hadn't lost it since, despite leading the biggest terrorist programme on Earth for a number of years with who knows how many innocent "collateral victims", going to war and whatnot.... So, I wouldn't be surprised... Let's get serious for a second: do you know what kind of fruit and veg is deemed "organic" in the UK, do you have a clue what kind of difference we are talking, between the two? Several sprays less. That's all! It's a big bloody con!!! So, going back to my original objection: you must primarily setup the system properly, laws and institutions, processes, inspectors, educating the staff, the general public, farmers and whatnot. Kids must be re-acquainted with Mother Earth and all that, for sure. But if the (neo-liberal) system is crooked, rigged and inhumane you'll get food that is not fit for purpose because it is built full of loopholes for corporations - ergo: forget it!
Just look at this: "Just last week the European Parliament, Commission, and Council met for the first time to negotiate the final proposal that could result in the toxic weedkiller glyphosate becoming banned in the EU, by making previously-secret industry studies available to the public. Last month, the European Parliament voted for strong legislation that would end this kind of secrecy. Industry players had been lobbying our MEPs hard to derail the proposal. But the WeMove community inundated MEPs with messages demonstrating widespread support for transparency in our food system. Now it’s time for the EU institutions to negotiate for a final agreement: If all of us join the call, we can still tip the scale in safety’s favour." https://act.wemove.eu/campaigns/pro...cXpYzCv95PSy5_CmLVPWSf0j1355eS3gTKTSvLKYBiEco
worth a try, at least; although i have zero confidence in those eu-buraucrats,they are undemocratic, incompetent, and corrupt. just look at what they are doing to our bees,, https://www.wired.co.uk/article/pesticides-poisoning-european-honeybees
Indeed, the cartel-like beginnings of what we know as EU have strong structural and procedural overtones in the EU institutions and procedures, which need to be purged towards proper inclusion of various interests, which are currently giving way all too frequently to the Capital, rather than Labour, Oligarchy, rather that Democracy, short-term profits, rather than long term sustainability, tactical over strategic thinking and acting, not to mention "feeling". We must do a helluvalot more, if we have our kids on our minds and in our hearts. And what we teach them in kindergartens will determine the outcomes of such debates and struggles... Pollution, global warming (the bit we are responsible for) and so on are but symptoms of our society and how we see ourselves...
We have to be personally ready to really give something up! The people's problem is just to think and to talk, but no real actions do follow. This applies especially to politicians. The purpose of herbicides is to kill plants. Our ideology is to support and protect a chosen useful plant by eliminating the rival. There is the human idea of a certain selectivity against the nature's idea which does not have this selectivity. Glyphosate for instance kills by blocking an essential biochemical process, it does not follow our idea of selectivity. As a result it is harmful to a greater extent.... The same ideology applies to pesticides. It just includes animals as rivals. It is the entire idea that is wrong. Why should I debate about a certain herbicide/pesticide? And why should I get lost in all the scientific details to find an pro or con argument? And why should I listen to all the farmers complaining about their losses if they could not use 'Chemistry' anymore? There are natural processes which are 'counterproductive' to human's intention to grow useful plants and to make most of money with those. It is sick to use a general poison to enforce human ideology to have a chosen plant as the one who should grow best ...and at best alone only.... It doesn't matter if Glyphosate really causes cancer. It should be forbidden as any synthetic herbicide / pesticide should be forbidden. It's the ideology to use such that is wrong. The producer should live with a higher loss and should get more money for their products. The consumer should be willing to pay them their higher costs. There is no reason not to go backwards and grow stuff like our grandparents did in their garden / on their fields. If there's weeds dig them in. Use natural stuff to keep away natural enemies. Live with the natural efficiency. So going back to my original objection...instead of having demands to politicians and lawmakers and listening to all their blahblahblah I have a look who follows my idea how to produce and I do support those buying their products whenever I can.... When there's a growing interest and more and more do support such (still rare) producers the market will change...to set new trends is more effective than to count on politicians. I also support home made and crafted products / producer... Here's a good read about a very local political success and how hard it is to achieve something there: http://www.goethe.de/ins/cz/prj/fup/en14546616.htm
Sorry but markets are NOT good judges of what is good/clever/useful/worthwhile, Yen. One simply has to use politics against markets and seriously and carefully regulate them, otherwise - watch-out!!! Millions of serious pieces of rather strong and irrefutable evidence are out there... Go figure...
The 'judge' is the individual supporting the market that fits to one's idea most. Not the market itself. Again here the problematic thing is when there is no alternative. I've been to London in 1992. I know that well, because it was the first time in my life I took a flight. We arrived at Gatwick airport and had to go to Victoria Station. We could not find it at first place, because it has been barricaded by the London bomb squad....IRA terror and stuff... What I noticed was the 'liberal' food law when we've been to the supermarkets....we had a strange salami which appeared to be remarkable soft and an orange juice that fluoresced with black light in a club, LOL. One's own observations and abilities to compare are important. Dunno how it is today....but the situation is also dependent on one's location. I do not want to say one has not to use politics against markets. But what one can do already tomorrow is to make an own opinion and to act actively by choosing products coming from producers who already realize a way of production that fits to one's personal idea of healthy and fair products...
Yen, markets, unfettered markets are manipulable by corporations, banks, financial institutions, bond dealers and states, sometimes even by individuals. Do you understand just how significant this is? You can not judge markets anecdotally, through these goggles of a scientist who may or may not be more or less rational.
Yes, of course. BTW: In almost no EU-country the multinational corporations do pay the tax rate they actually would have to. Where are the politicians? Gorski, you turn the focus of the debate towards a political issue and you try to argue for your political ideas / direction. I am still at food laws, the Chemistry and the corresponding markets and how everybody of us can actively change something. Of course we need laws / politics to forbid the use of a certain substance / class... But what everybody of us can is to choose markets and to inform. I do not mean (financial) markets / groups / their dependency on banks / lobbyism / corruption and stuff..... One has to get which alternatives are around one's location..for instance I can choose the supermarket or can go to a small shop when I buy foods.... Turkish greengrocery....I can talk to the owner asking stuff like from where do you get your veggies.. I can inform about the supermarket chains available. Who is behind, what are their products, from where do they get them, who is involved....there are supermarket chains I do avoid for personal reasons. I can talk to the staff . I can choose brands there which produce the way that fits to my idea. Of course there has to be trust.... I can go to the weekly markets.....I can inform which farmers are selling directly. I can find a butchery that gets the animals from known farms and can talk to the owner / staff..... I can get stuff (boar/ deer) from a hunter I know personally. He's allowed to hunt. His father is a butcher and he's making own products. I can support hand-crafted products and I can seek communications with the makers... I can have own fruits / veggies when they have season... And finally I can go to a craft brewery where they offer hand-made stuff and traditional foods coming from local producers.... The consumers have a great influence on markets! Supply and demand. They are one half and they can choose.
Yen, citizens are a part of the story, of course. But most of that part lies with educating new generations. The present ones (in HUGE numbers!!!) are steeped in consumerism and the whole thing must be managed carefully by politics or we're going down the drain in speed... sadly... Pollution and global warming are a part of our woes, of course...