Originally from: mark purdey
                        
Hi Colleen,

I totally agree with you about the Brits and their reluctance towards being open with research data , etc. It is all to do with protecting the vested interests, should any product ever prove to be held accountable for causing some health catastrophy that will lead to massive damage payments at the end of the day. I think that, in respect of your discussion, the difference between the Brits and the Americans is that the Americans tend to throw more money into researching the possible / likely environmental health negatives of a new invention , before they license its open release onto the market. Whereas, the developers in this country tend to channel all of the available money into perfecting the invention ( no bad thing ), yet largely skimp investigation of the possible negatives for fear of sinking the whole project. Furthermore, the licensing authorities in this country are abit more incestuous – Key individuals from the relevant industry bodies dominate the ranks of the supposedly impartial government committees that are granting the licenses for their very own own products. At one time, 75% of the veterinary products committee were made up of pharmaceutical company folk . Hardly democracy. Well, the US EPA also has its problems, but not as bad as goes on here.

I have just written a letter to a farming paper which discusses this very same problem. Its in response to the UK government scraping a meeting to be held about the neurological effects in the farmers who were exposed to agricultural organo-phosphate insecticides. A phenomena that was government compelled here in the UK –

 Re: DEFRA ditch OP summit.

Dear Sir,

Back in 1984 when my farming business defeated the UK government's compulsory OP warble fly order in the high courts, I felt that there was a possibility of persuading officialdom that neuropsychiatric repercussions would inevitably follow any compulsory OP treatment programmes; thereby getting the authorities to reconsider their policies.

But nobody took any serious notice, and all anti-OPites found themselves subjected to a prolonged campaign of ridicule and dirty tricks from the appropriate departments. They were criminalised and marginalised until they lost all self worth.

Today, we are dealing with a DEFRA who have surrendered every last iota of government independence to the commercial interests of the multinational corporations. They have betrayed the healthy interests of the very people and environment who they are supposed to be serving.

In this respect, it is not surprising to read that DEFRA have ditched the OP summit ( FG 24/10/03). In one sense, their officials are finally being honest in stating that there is nothing new to discuss. On the face of it, they have never had any genuine intention of advancing the debate . We all know that agricultural OPs were proven to be toxic to human health back in the1950s, plus we all know that the government could never afford to cough up the compensation for the raft of illhealth damages that has directly / indirectly resulted from the compulsory overdosing with OP – Neurodegenerative disease in farmworkers, BSE, ME, etc, etc. The government has craftily installed the enemy onto both sides of the OP chessboard, and this has kept the debate in stalemate for many years now.

The answer is for the people of this country to bypass the so called sugar daddy state and get on with policing our toxic problems for ourselves. We need to become responsible as individuals for our own health, and simply refuse to buy the classes of chemical or food that are currently leading us into the abyss of self destruction. That is the only way to stop the heart rot.

The government will never own up to the fact that their compulsory OP licensing had given us a diverse array of neurological diseases such as BSE, or that the fungicides they have licensed for inclusion into our soaps have given us skin cancer , or that concorde's sonic shock waves have blasted the atomic equilibrium of the ozone layer to pieces. They just make silent retreats; and , if anyone starts shouting, they misappropriate the blame onto a natural scapegoat like sheep scrapie, ultra violet rays or the methane from livestock manures.

Sincerely, Mark Purdey. ( www.markpurdey.com)