The American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund just released a report warning that people with extra body fat have a higher risk of cancer. That would be me. As well, those who eat red meat should be concerned. Again, me. Those who consume alcohol aren’t safe either. Okay, there is nowhere for me to hide.
Reports are released to the media and, especially in this case, receive a great deal of coverage. Those who rebut the findings, like the organizations involved in the production and processing of these “threatening” products react, and people say they are being defensive. Of course they are, and rightly so.
Then we end up with some people taking drastic measures to change their lifestyles, and others who yawn and turn to the next news item. What do I, the consumer, need to know in order to make informed decisions about what’s safe and what’s not? Where do I find the information that will help me decide?
Not everyone has the same pool of resources to draw from, so many are at a disadvantage when it comes to learning more. The web is a great tool, but when does a tool become a weapon? Is it when readers can’t discern a reliable source from a questionable one? Are we skeptical when information comes from someone we feel has a vested interest in a topic?
Back to the cancer report for a minute: Has anyone thought to ask whether genetic predispostions, lifestyles, pre-existing conditions, environment, stress level or myriad other concerns exacerbate the risk of cancer? What about using moderation as a guide. There are a lot of naturally occurring substances that can be toxic at a certain level, but we use common sense to protect ourselves from risk, don’t we?
Here is another prime example of an unbalanced issue: The push to ban cosmetic pesticides from municipalities in order to protect citizens, especially children. It is a growing concern, but who is causing it to be so? Special interest groups who base their opinions on emotion, rather than science?
The Ontario Green Party claims that the risks of pesticides outweigh the benefits. Several health organizations agree, but what conclusive results are they basing their opinions on?
Then, we have manufacturers of these products trying to balance the equation and they are accused of having ulterior motives like profit. This is a rather ignorant accusation. These people are consumers too, they have families, and they are very well educated. They are governed by a strict set of standards and tests that measure the safety of the products before they ever reach the store shelf. A great educational tool available to consumers comes in DVD format, and was produced by Syngenta Crop Protection Canada. It contains easy to understand information on the risks and benefits of manufactured pesticides. The DVD, titled “Primer on Pesticides: What do we really know about them?” has already been sent to schools, and to municipalities currently debating the cosmetic pesticide ban.
The one factor that seems to me to be out of control is the person buying the product and using it incorrectly. Yes, the human factor is the biggest problem we face in this debate. People buy a pesticide, take it home, and start spraying. I’ve seen them in shorts and T-shirts, in bare feet, and puffing away on a cigarette while they’re at it. Guess what, products have a label for a reason. The label lists the ingredients, the approved method of application, the rate at which it should be applied, and the conditions under which it should be used. The greater danger than the product is the person holding the bottle.
Don’t take things at face value. Take the time to ask questions, get involved, learn more. It is your right as a consumer to do so. Don’t allow yourselft to be railroaded into something, or have control over your own property taken away when it doesn’t need to be.
