Mike S wrote:

> It can be used as proof of concept and from there
> additional studies can be conducted. 

True, but historically, initial forced exposure studies
that raise alarm bells trigger many more studies which 
yield both positive and negative impact results and 
then from there an even more massive studies are 
conducted until ultimately the chemical is exonerated.
Recent examples: impact of BT corn pollen on monarch
butterflies, impact of Roundup herbicide on frogs, impact of
Atrazine herbicide on frogs.

Lets look at the Atrazine example:

In Oct. 2002 UC Berkeley published this shocking press release:
"Popular weed killer atrazine feminizes native frogs across 
Midwest, could be impacting amphibian populations worldwide."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/10/30_frogs.html

Almost two dozen additional studies were conducted and
ultimately EPA decided atrazine did not cause reproductive
problems for frogs:

"EPA has taken an especially close look at the research 
conducted by Dr. Tyrone Hayes which reports that atrazine 
adversely affects sexual development in frogs, causing a 
mixture of sex organs in a single animal. EPA has concluded 
that the existing data are insufficient to demonstrate that
atrazine causes such effects."
http://www.atrazine.com/Amphibians/atrazine_amphibians.aspx

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm