> >
> >Interesting reading, but I am hesitant to accept the
> conclusions of an
> >organization dedicated to eliminating pesticides from the
> environment.
> >Too much agenda.
>
>
> This is crazy.  Should we also suspect the motives of
> organizations like
> the Kidney Association, the Multiple Sclerosis Association, the Heart
> Association?  After all, their objectives are the elimination
> (cure/prevention) of human disease.  The objectives of
> organizations trying
> to protect (cure/prevent) planetary 'disease' (pollution) should be
> susapect because they have an 'agenda'?
>
The short answer is "YES".

As I read the rest of the post I see lots of examples where the choice of
words to describe the problem are designed to provoke a mental image of
those
on one side as "evil" and those on the other side as "good". This is a
common
style of writting and not uncommon on either side of most issues.

The crusades were fought by "good moral people" against "bad immoral people"
for
what seemed at the time a "no brainer". Everyone on the "good" side was sure
of
their methods and motives. Today the people who think of themselves as "good
moral people" look back at the issues and come to different conclusions.

I think the truth is far more complex than most people would care to deal
with. Using chemicals has a cost. Not using chemicals has a cost. In the
example above we have the Heart Association telling us to eat margarine and
give up butter. Today we have questions about what margarine does to our
health.

Even when the motives are noble, the result can still be a crusade.