Dear Toni;
You might consider reading the book entitled "Myths of Gender"by
Anne Sterling-Faustino. I think . The author is a trained biologist who
points out the fallacious thinking and biased interpretations of the studies
you mentioned. I believe that the way we talk to and touch our children
communicate to them that there is a difference between the way our
society perceives males and females. I don't know what the official
word is on ecofeminist praxis but *I* do not believe that the differences,
if there are any, are significant. Such thinking is essentialist and
has implications that I find troublesome if not frightening. As soon
as essential differences are assumed, there follows a ranking or
hierarchy, a division of us\them. Women always come out on the
bottom wrung. The author was also recently on a television
documentary. I only caught a few minutes of it. I also recently
read "The Brain Has No Sex?" I may have the titles and or quthors
mixed up. I'll check it out tonight. One of the two books is
slightly more essentialist.
Peace,
Carolyn Feser On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Toni Withers wrote:
> Hi
> As a different note from the vegetarian subject....
>
> I am unclear about an aspect of ecofeminism. Is one of ecofeminisms main
> premises an acceptance of the biological differences inherent between men
> and women ?
> Or if I call myself an ecofeminist, am I supposed to believe that women and
> men are so very much the same that any apparent differences have resulted
> from our psycho-social upbringing in a society tainted by a patriarchy in
> many areas. ?
>
> Because I have been reading a book that summarises all the very recent
> scientific findings about the structural and functional differences that
> have been found between the average male and female brain.
> They explain how the different hormones present in the mothers womb direct
> the foetus's brain to develop significantly differently bewteen baby boys
> and girls, and how these differences probably direct many of the different
> abilities and types and personalities in adults of opposing sexes.
> Its very interesting.
> And I can't help thinking that ecofeminism should probably be acknowledging
> these differences also, as part of recognising the tendency for women to be
> nurturing and compassionate towards animals and the environment, which may
> be more common than it is in men.
>
> Or does ecofeminism believe differences in status, type and personality
> between the sexes are purely a result of a past history of male domination
> and patriarchy..?
> Am i right in thinking this is an importance point for ecofeminism ??
>
> I'd appreciate alittle feedback
>
> Toni Withers
>
> CRC for Tropical Pest Management
> Queensland
> Australia
>
>
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 2 09:21:34 1996
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:21:07 BST
From: Richard Twine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Ooops...
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I didn't want to enter this thread but...........
This list has seen many veggie debates, check the past threads
on the web.....
I can sympathise with Amy's rant but....
-I was shocked to see you list anti-abortionism with all the rest,
and how come no one else has picked up on this, was it a mis-print??
-secondly the rant was highly individualistic, ethical consumerism
is to be supported and lived BUT it only goes so far, it is working within
the framework which we want to change, therefore it is sadly piecemeal.
Re-Stephen's comment on human's natural omnivorous state. I quite
agree but........
Don't you think that this provides a beautiful moral opportunity???
That is, not to eat nonhuman animals. Animals feel pain, I don't think
plant life does - what else needs to be said?????Also you talked about the
monthly consumption of seafood and how this reminds you of your place
in nature and the recycling of matter - one point - there is natural death and
enforced death.........Doesn't eating plant life serve this purpFrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 2 15:24:44 1996
; 3 Jul 96 09:23:35 +1200
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 09:22:18 +1200
From: "STEFANIE S. RIXECKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Please Sign On/fwd--LONG!
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Lincoln University
Dear ECOFEMers,
I thought this might be of interest. I don't have any additional
info, so if anyone wants to add to this discussion and inform us
more, please do!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
July 2, 1996
Dear Friend:
Please join us in protesting the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) "Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment." This is
urgent. The EPA claims these changes will "modernize the science of
cancer risk assessment," but in reality this is a major step
backwards which will result in more chemical carcinogens ending up in
the environment and our bodies. Enclosed is the Cancer Prevention
Coalition's response. We urge you to sign on and protest this attack
on the nation's public health.
EPA's Proposed Guidelines deemphasize animal testing in favor of
epidemiological evidence and microbiological, genetic and mechanistic
data. In spite of claims that this approach reflects "the very best
scientific knowledge available," the new guidelines are in fact
scientifically flawed because they:
Downplay animal test data, despite the fact that animal test results
are highly predictive to humans; all 23 recognized human carcinogens
also cause cancer in animals.
Support the existence of supposed "threshold" levels below which no
carcinogenic effects are witnessed. Science has never been able to
set tolerances for any one carcinogen, let alone the mutilple
chemical risks people are exposed to in the environment.
Make risk prevention impossible by insisting on "after-the-fact"
human data; animal tests are the only way to test carcinogenicity
before deaths occur.
Scientific and policy considerations apart, the general public and
at-risk groups (children, low-income persons, minorities, the
elderly, residents of polluted areas, etc.) should have a stronger
role in defining what level of risk is "acceptable." By introducing
questionable science into the risk assessment process, in prose that
is unintelligible to the lay public, the EPA has placed us in grave
danger and given us little recourse.
EPA's proposed changes open the floodgates to interminable special
interest challenge. The tobacco industry has thwarted regulation by
calling for "more research" to determine, for example, if some
smokers are "genetically inclined" to lung cancer. Will others who
also profit from carcinogens now be allowed to raise "reasonable
doubts" that stall regulation?
These proposals will erode EPA's already limited regulation of
carcinogens and increase avoidable exposures to cancer-causing
chemicals. Concerned citizens must demand that EPA direct its
policies to preventing cancer risks rather than attempting to
"manage" them. Please sign our comments and make your position known
in other ways as well. Please return to us no later than July 17.
Return to: Cancer Prevention Coalition, 520 North Michigan Avenue,
Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60611. For more information please call the
Cancer Prevention Coalition at 312/467.0600.
Sincerely,
Robert Kociolek
Executive Director
__ We Endorse the Cancer Prevention Coalition Response to the EPA
Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines
_____________ __________________ ______________
Signature Group Date
Please fax 312-467-0599, or e-mail back to us as soon as possible.
July 2, 1996
Technical Information Staff
(8623) NCEA-WA/OSG
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
We express grave concerns over EPA's April 23 Proposed Guidelines for
evaluating the cancer risk of pesticides and other industrial
chemicals. These radical new Guidelines claim to "modernize the
science of cancer risk assessment" by: relying on microbiological,
genetic and mechanistic "weight of evidence"; prioritizing
epidemiological over experimental evidence of carcinogenicity; and
downgrading carcinogenic effects induced in animals at "only
excessively high doses never seen in the environment" (EPA Press
Release). Furthermore, EPA proposes that these carcinogenic effects
be qualified by criteria such as whether the induced tumors are
"benign" or malignant and whether or not they metastasize. EPA also
proposes that threshold or non-linear dose-response extrapolation
"is appropriate when there is no evidence of linearity.
EPA's proposals invite regulatory gridlock. They seek to replace the
single criterion of experimental evidence on carcinogenicity by a
complex of multiple lines of evidence of arguable merit and
relevance, and thus open the Agency's floodgates to interminable
special interest challenge. They also seek to shift decision-making
away from scientist toward "risk managers". Furthermore, the
proposals are scientifically flawed:
There is a consensus in the scientific literature on the validity of
qualitative extrapolation of experimental carcinogenicity data to
human risk, irrespective of ancillary "weight of evidence". All the
23 recognized human carcinogens are also carcinogenic in
experimental animals, and for many of these carcinogens, the animal
data preceded epidemiological confirmation (Rall, D., Ann. NYAS,
534:78-83, 1988); for 18/23 of these carcinogens, one or more sites
in humans were predicted experimentally.
Carcinogenicity testing is inherently insensitive as: a statistical
function of the very small number of animals tested in relation to
the many million humans at presumptive risk; the short life span of
experimental animals relative to the long duration of human
exposure; and the possibility that humans are more sensitive to
particular carcinogens than animals. In an attempt to reduce such
gross insensitivity, National Toxicology Program bioassays are
routinely conducted at maximally tolerated doses (MTD) and MTD/4.
For those few carcinogens, dimethylnitrosamine, vinyl chloride and
acetylaminofluorene, whose testing has been extended downwards below
MTD/4, carcinogenic effects have persisted at the lowest levels
tested; contrary to EPA, such levels are "seen in the environment".
The remarkable advances in our understanding of the molecular
mechanisms of carcinogenesis over the last few decades are fully
consistent with linear dose-response extrapolation. However, in the
absence of affirmative evidence of linearity, EPA's Guidelines
permit non-linear extrapolation and the establishment of allegedly
safe or threshold exposure levels.
EPA's emphasis on the role of mechanistic and genetic data invites
special interest challenge to experimental evidence of
carcinogenicity. Illustrative is industry's insistence that
methylene chloride is not carcinogenic as it allegedly induces cancer
in only mice, and not rats or humans, and since it is more actively
metabolized via a glutathione pathway in mice than in rats and
humans; in fact, methylene chloride is also carcinogenic in rats
(IARC, 41:43-85, 1986). Zeneca Pharmaceuticals also urges such
downgrading: "We now have an excellent database for that kind of
(mechanistic_ evaluation". This strategy is also aggressively
supported by industry's academic consultants and organizations such
as Harvard's Center for Risk Analysis which is seeking to downgrade
the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde and chloroform on the basis of
"new biological evidence". Similar challenges are also being
directed to a wide range of other carcinogens, including
nitrilotriacetic acid, EBDC fungicides, ethyl acrylate, and others
inducing mouse liver tumors. Finally, it should be stressed that
insistence on "mechanistic data" ignores the fact that we still do
not know the mechanism of action of any single carcinogen.
EPA's Guidelines are myopically and unrealistically fixated on risk
assessment for individual carcinogens, rather than on aggregate
risks posed by a multiplicity of industrial carcinogenic contaminants
in air, water, food and other consumer products and the workplace,
with multiple routes of exposure.
EPA's emphasis on the "greater weight of human data -- (as) generally
preferable over animal data", is misplaced and unrealistic.
Epidemiological studies are generally unavailable for industrial
chemicals in commercial use (Tomatis, L., Ann. NYAS, 534:31-38,
1988). Furthermore, such relatively few studies are commonly
confounded by inadequate exposure data, sample size and follow-up,
besides other limitations.
EPA Guidelines make no attempt to assess the increased cancer risks
of children and pregnant women. "It is understood that -- certain
sensitive human subpopulations may be left without risk
assessments"; this admission is contrary to EPA's Press Release.
Of particular concern, EPA's proposals fail to encourage industry's
active participation in risk assessment. For example, industry
should be requested to routinely develop microbiological and genetic
data as possible early warning signals for the wide range of
chemicals in use which are still untested for carcinogenicity. For
those carcinogens detected at relatively high dose levels, MTD and
MTD/4, industry should be invited to conduct appropriate
dose-response tests at levels extending down to environmental
levels. Industry should further be invited to conduct valid
epidemiological studies, with detailed exposure data, on workers
exposed both to chemicals as yet untested for carcinogenicity and to
chemicals found to be carcinogenic in routine animal tests.
Scientific and policy considerations apart, the highly technical and
complex Guideline narrative effectively precludes participation by
the general public and minority communities alike, thus failing to
reflect principles of environmental justice. Of related concern is
the absence of any reference to scientific and lay representation of
citizen, public interest and labor groups in EPA's Scientific
Advisory Board.
Finally, EPA's proposals would erode its currently limited
regulation of carcinogens. They would also result in a further
increase of avoidable carcinogenic exposures. At a time of
escalating cancer rates, EPA should more appropriately direct its
policies to preventing risks of cancer by toxic use reduction
strategies, rather than by attempting to manage them.
Submitted and endorsed by:
Scientists:
Samuel S. Epstein, M. D. Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition;
and Professor of Environmental Medicine, School of Public Health,
University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center
Dr. William Lijinsky, Ph.D. Member of the Board of Directors, Cancer
Prevention Coalition; and Former Director of Chemical Carcinogenesis
Program, Frederick Cancer Research Center, Maryland
Groups:
Cancer Prevention Coalition
Project Impact Inc.
Pure Food Campaign
The Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC)
520 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 410
Chicago, IL 60611
312-467-0600 (p)
312-467-0599 (f)
internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Working to prevent cancer in our communities"
************************************
Stefanie S. Rixecker
Department of Resource Management
Lincoln University, Canterbury
Aotearoa New Zealand
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************
