>> I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is not safe It's not like the EPA does no testing, but what about the unknowns? For ex

>> I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is not safe It's not like the EPA does no testing, but what about the unknowns? For example, men's sperm counts have gone down 50% over the last 30 years and scientists have no solid explanation (despite >1000 journal articles on the topic). Are you confident that pesticides play no role in this? Or autism? Or immune disorders? The EPA doesn't even try do testing on long-term exposure to a low-dose of substances, which is exactly what is described in the article. Calling the EPA "fallible humans" is laughable. The question is - is the EPA process systematically too trusting of new chemicals? I have my answer. I recommend you start your education on this topic with "The precautionary principle." http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/E83079.pdf http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/E8...