Margaret,

May I present a counterpoint presentation that may be more relevant?

Rather than focusing on the political and social-economic policies during ANY administration, focus upon the fundamental scientific disciplines and science that have driven those decisions with resulting actions.

I was taught early in my career to focus on the fundamentals of science, objectively looking at the evidence, while disregarding obviously skewed or un-fundamental science.

One of the better examples I used was arguing hundreds of scientifically sound, peer reviewed science journal articles against an article in "Mother Earth News" that was 180 degrees opposed to those articles.

In my opinion, sound science should drive the proposed laws with good peer review and critical oversight.

I read of a current example, which I think acknowledges this point.

Why did a U.S. Judge rely upon "a potential to cause cancer" determination from the E.U., while completely disregarding the hundreds of U.S. based peer-reviewed articles showing no such distinction in the case of Round-Up.

While the U.S. EPA reviewed all of those peer reviewed articles and determined that Round-Up did not cause cancer - but this determination was deemed not even admissible to the jurors who decided against the manufacturers of Round-Up.

I'm perplexed. Is this science being influenced by politics? Is this science being influenced by poor public education with a high level of ignorance (lack of knowledge - thanks to our public education system) among the jury pool?

As the Father of 2/2 P.h.D.s, I would rather have our children taught how to critically evaluate and interpret the information being presented - regardless of source, then come to a decision based upon justifiably sound science.

But this is my opinion only. I'm not interested in denying or justifying political and socio-economic policies regarding occupational or environmental exposures.

What I am interested in, is having our population know or being able to at least a reasonable question, if not even recognize a possible situation similar to that which occurred to those citizens of Flint Michigan.

But that hope can only be addressed if the citizenry is properly educated in how to comprehend, digest, evaluate and argue for the safe application of scientific principles. But that is only my hope, I fear it is not the current reality.

What a shame. Why?

BruceV

P.S. My opinion only.

From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> On Behalf Of Margaret Rakas
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 5:39 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Evolution of chemical law and toxicology...

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas