See, now _this_ would be a proper use of the precautionary principle.
Although the evidence is still sparse (frog fertility is vastly different than human fertility, even though both involve sperm and egg), certainly, the governing agencies would be prudent to take a closer look at whether atrazine should be re-certified. For all we know, it could be the next DDT.
But this raises the larger issue of corporate interest and government policy (which is an ever pervasive debate/issue). While the frogs and atrazine are a good case study, we could discuss ad nauseam about other wide-spread issues like Monsanto and GM crops, or pharmaceutical companies and cloning, or Microsoft and spyware.
A similar case (with higher consequences) happened a few years ago when Dr. Olivieri at the Hospital for Sick Kids published data stating that deferiprone (a drug for a blood disorder) was ineffective and possibly toxic. She was funded by Apotex, who developed deferiprone and published her data without their permission, and actively tried to supress the publication. This resulted in two years of court battles, including the abandonment of Dr. Olivieri by her hopsital, which was later rescinded.
So, even in the light of _actual_ evidence (she was studying the drug in a clinical trial with chidren), where there is still space for skepticism, the monster still rears its head.
|