Ractopamine has been banned in over 160 countries worldwide, excluding the US, Canada and of course Australia
The chemical ractopamine is a beta agonist agent given to Pigs to increase protein synthesis. The public has not been made aware of this dangerous chemical and continue to eat it when dining on Australian pork.
Ractopamine is responsible for Quote:

The problem with allowing this chemical to be given to pigs on such a large scale is that there has been no proper testing to show the short and long term effect to both new generations of pigs and even humans.
Although it is just one of the many thousand dangerous chemicals we encounter every day, it should be brought attention to none the less.
Quote:


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/06/why-does-fda-allow...

Here is a CSIRO paper completely ignoring the dangerous side to this chemical now known by the public to be a reality:http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=AN09076

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ractopamine

Dooley wrote on Jan 31^st, 2012 at 6:14pm:


Yes, marvelous idea......What's a few million malaria deaths per year, compared to using an effective insecticide.....

IF you are going to try sarcasm next time with me - as opposed to simply address the subject (and I will remember your nick) in a logical fashion, then I will be the proverbial burr in your sock every time you make a post on this board. Dimwit. You have been duly advised. Mate. Don't try it again with me


Sheesh I bet Gizmo is shaking in his ugg boots. BTW my money is on Gizmo.

You are a 1,000 to 1 shot.

Dooley....please ignore the idiots and continue posting.


Speaking of which or is it witch, here comes Pansi.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 7:49am:



Lets put it another way old girl. If Dooley was saying something the opposite  to your twisted thinking would you have welcomed him/her? Be honest now.

BTW i have heard that Fiji has cleansed itself since you left.

Gizmo the main problem with the chemicals is a Trojan horse.
There is never enough testing done be it on insecticides, pesticides, food additives, medications, fluoride, vaccinations etc... To be even 10% sure that we are not going to ruin the human race.
With the amount of dangerous chemicals we have been exposed to in the few centuries it’s very possible future generations could face some very serious health problems.

It’s easy to look at one chemical and justify it but the fact is we have been surviving for millions of years without it, its just one in a million chemicals and its really not worth the potential risk.

[/quote]

The banning of chemicals is the Trojan horse in this argument...
You ban a chemical simply on 'suspicion' of being harmful....and ignore the fact that it's 99% effective in stopping a disease vector that IS lethal to man...

There are times when the risks are justified....DDT is one of those times... [/quote]

if of course you are going to take the end result as the reason for proceeding with an unknown you could be accussed of putting the horse before the cart. In the case of DDT - as there was no long term sequential examination of the widespread effects on the population and it's long term health due directly to the use of DDT there are therefore no "official figures" for those numbers due to it's almost universal appeal in effectively allowing the masses to continue to live and work in areas that no sane personwould given a chance.

As to the "effectiveness" of the use it is also worth noting that most of the lower-classes or castes live in areas not chosen by the rich or powerful eg swamps and mangroves, areas where DDT was widely used. But these people need to live nearby to work in factories and high intensity agri-business enterprises that disturb ecosystems and produce unnatural breeding conditions and environments for these insect borne diseases to find a niche. So, effectively while the dimishing vector of contamination through insect control may have been achieved through the use of a chemical, it is once again the rich and powerful who invariabley are not the sector of the community who suffer the effects of it's use or in this case it's mis-use and it as a consequence also promotes the advancement of having squalor and ghettos in swamps and other unhealthy ecosystems that humans given a chioce don't usually inhabit excepting out of lack of choices

Besides no-one is promoting the idea of universally discounting the methods of science - gathering evidence making logical rational decisions based on that evidence - and that I believe is the main thrust of the argument here. The method of true science - the advancement of humankind, not corporate non-human entities - is not being allowed due diligence, and it cannot achieve it's declared aim, while assumptions or figurative arguments in support of widespread use of anything remotely suspected of having widespread negative outcomes.

The chemical as detailed - and supportive arguments and documentation is proffered to underpin the declaration - is noxious and is clearly a threat to the health of humans.

Additionally it may seem at first worthwhile to promote the idea and practise of believing anything chemical and drug manufacturers advertise - but is that a reality you really believe in the best interests of humankind? Do you really think drug or chemical manufacturers are above the prevails of any other industry that promotes its products through advertising media such as magazines TV or Radio? Are you really advocating that it is in our best interests that we simply take for granted the glimmer and gloss of roling TV advertising campaigns by Anyone of thing and take their advise as always being in our and our families best interests?????????  Do you really advocate that we just believe everything that is proffered as the next great cure or additive or medical procedure as always being in our best interests and making decisions about how good that decision was until AFTER the decision has been made?????? Are you really advocating that we simply ignore facts and evidence that supports the argument certain products - no matter if they are chemicals or drugs or any other product or service for that matter - are BAD and we should just continue to proceed as if nothing comes to light regards that path????  I would find this form of life to be a very short one indeed and might wonder how many people you know who live this style of existence and for how long. Not very long I'm sure.


While you dramatise the proposition to remove chemicals and other hazards to human health is a kneejerk reaction, I diametrically contend and dramatise the proposition to ignore the facts and evidence is ignorant and not the true way of science.....

Your reply? Pardon the typos

as long as your willing to ignore the surrounding evidence to the contrary.

you still maintan that it is worthwhile to ignore growing anecdotile evidence and other studies that support the reasons to stop using poisons and other chemicals simply because they have a known effect. Where is DDT still used? NOWHERE. Why? Because it has negative impacts and long term consequences to the food chain and human health. No-one, anyway still uses DDT.

On the other hand while you maintain your stance on this issue I'd like to know why you we shouldn't take the same PRECAUTIONARY stance that other government agencies worldwide when it comes to allowing the profiteering of substances from a human weakness to seek cures for illnesses and disease. How do rationisle supporting quackery in the sciences?