RE: dioxin exposure routes

[jchristensen@igc.apc.org (Jackie Hunt Christensen)]

I feel compelled to respond to Mike Ewall's e-mail about dioxin exposure
through food for several reasons.  I certainly agree that animal products
top the list of exposure, but removing them from our diets gives us a false
sense of security (since there are still other exposure routes) but much
more importantly, focusing on dietary changes puts the onus of
responsibilitiy for exposure FALSELY on the shoulders of the producers
(farmers and fishers) and lets the DIOXIN PRODUCERS off the hook.

A vegan diet is fine for those who choose it, but I personally don't feel
that it is right that folks should be forced to alter their habits because
some polluter messed up the food supply.  Nor do I feel it is right to have
to warn people that their cultural practices or livelihoods may be putting
their lives at risk, again because some polluter contaminated the food
supply.

People have the right to know what's in their food and make choices, and
for that reason, I'm glad that web sites lik ethe envirolink one Mike
listed are available.  But I also believe that we have to hammer home at
EVERY opportunity that it realy isnt' much of a choice when the nation's
(and the world's) food supply is needlessly contaminated with dioxin from
incinerators, bleached pulp mills, PVC plants and other polluters who are
not being forced to take responsibility for the environmental and public
healh havoc they are wreaking.

It is my belief that calls for vegan diets do little to broaden the
coalition we need to win this battle because what's in it for cattle
ranchers, dairy farmers, commercial fishers?  If we're telling folks not to
each what they produce, why should the join us?  Why SHOULDN"T they join
the other side? (Many do, annd the CCC is certainly actively recruiting.)

I also think the call for veganism perpetuates the traditional enviro
stereotype taht we're a bunch of white middle-class hippie types looking
out for ourselves.  Many people in this country supplement their diets with
fish they catch themselves because it's all they can afford.  Likewise,
farmers feed their families with what they produce.  Native Americans hold
salmon and many game animals to be sacred -- what right do I have to
interfere with that?

I say it's a better tactical decision to leave food choices out of the
discussion adn focus on putting the onus back on the DIOXIN PRODUCERS,
where it belongs.  In doing so, we have a much better chance of making
allies of the ranchers, dairy farmers, fishers, and ethnic groups who are
most impacted by this pollution because of their cultural practices, and
who have so much to lose..  Let's not create another "Alar" situation,
which was successful in getting the chemical off teh market but also put a
lot of small apple growers out of business.  I firmly believe taht we can
shut down the dioxin producers without decimating the nation's food
producers at the same time.

Jackie Hunt Christensen
IATP
1313 5th St. SE #303
Minneapolis, MN 55414
phone: 612-379-5980; fax: 612-379-5982
e-mail: <jchristensen@igc.apc.org>