Hi Warwick,

First off sorry about the "rubbish" comment - allowing my emotions to overtake my typing fingers I'm afraid.

My point is that the children were simply being monitored as to what they were already being exposed to. There are several possible outcomes - it turns out that the pesticdes aren't affecting their health; they are, but not as badly as being exposed to the pests; or they are being adversely affected.

IF the final one is true there is evidence to back up calls to reduce the use of AND, if necessary, to legally enforce a withdrawl of the products.

Either way we get to the truth of the matter (not the propoganda issued by both sides of the debate) and the children are no worse off. There is no situation in which the children are worse off after the monitoring so I don't see what the problems are.

I agree that we don't need sprays to make our tyres cleaner. However, in a country where a third of poor children are exposed to so many cockroaches that they develop severe allergies, and in a world where one third of all of the crops produced are lost to pest damage, I'd argue that cheap, effective and safe pesticides are a different matter.

Pete




God is our guide! from field, from wave, From plough, from anvil, and from loom; We come, our country's rights to save, And speak a tyrant faction's doom: We raise the watch-word liberty; We will, we will,we will be free!