Just because DDT may be necessary if you live in a swamp or where malaria is prevalent does not mean the New World Order / One World Government should tell Europeans what they must eat and from where.
Could you explain what your post is related to, and articulate your point.
Who do you think should make the Europeans import certain food? The United Nations?
Lucky France is not claiming DDT should be banned world wide because while it benefits those due to die from Malaria (which may never have been a big problem in the US but is in Panama and the like) DDT is apparently not good for others who do not live in malaria prone areas. The whole food chain thing. Like us claiming Brazil should not clear their forests as it is bad for the planet.
Imagine if someone went to build a nuclear on coal plant on the absolute western most line in Illinois. Folks in Indiana probably would be upset if they have tougher environmental standards as they are downwind.
1. Where did you find that I suggest making the Europeans import African produce?
Since I didn't do so, and since you are not a fool....
...your post comes across as an attempt to suggest that the argument I've made is other than the true one.
2. "Imagine if ..."
How about we don't imagine anything, and stick to the facts.
3. In the US, it is necessary for a product to be shown to be harmful before it is banned.
a. The ‘precautionary principle’ can be summarized as ‘better safe than sorry,’ and in Europe, it is the law of the land. “The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU). It aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk. However, in practice, the scope of this principle is far wider and also covers consumer policy, European legislation concerning food and human, animal and plant health.”
This is the effect of Liberalism, whose doctrines reveal feeling, rather than knowing.
4. 'Despite this direct exposure, the scientific world has failed to produce any substantial evidence to back claims that link DDT to health ailments in humans. We do know, however, that wherever DDT has been used in public health, disease and deaths decreased dramatically and human populations began to rise; something one wouldn't expect if DDT was as dangerous as some people make it out to be.'
DDT use urged by: Jasson Urbach, Free Market Foundation | H. D. Hudson
a. Other chemicals are available, but they are generally less effective, shorter-acting and - most importantly for the Third World - more expensive.
And DDT is extraordinarily safe for humans. Prof Kenneth Mellanby lectured on it for more than 40 years, and during each lecture he would eat a pinch.
DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years - Telegraph
And, please, don't pretend that my posts are malleable. Stick to what I actually say.
