The precautionary principle

This has become a sort of slogan for activists. We have all probably seen the anti-fluoride political posters – “If in doubt, keep it out.” And we have heard the appeal that we should not be putting fluoride into our drinking water until all researchers are unanimous and it has been absolutely proved it can do no harm.

Well, what do these activists make of this plot.

The data look pretty good and the correlation is excellent. Surely this at least shows the science on organic food is not settled.

Should we stop the sale of organic produce “in the meantime.” Or until rigorous checks have been made and researchers are absolutely unanimous that organic foods are harmless?

In fact, data in that graph are far better, and certainly “seem” more convincing, than the poor data often used by anti-fluoride activists to promote doubt about fluoridation.

To take another ploy used by prominent political activists. Even if this data is shonky doesn’t it at least  suggest we should be careful? That it should “be an urgent spur to higher quality studies” to check it out?

Why is no-one doing this important research – checking the relationship between organic food and incidence of autism? Is that because researchers are biased, “shills” for the organic produce industry or part of a huge conspiracy?

Next thing I will be raving about Agenda 21.

See also: GUEST POST: Ken Perrott – Making sense of the fluoride debate

Similar articles