I can only comment on the lackadaisical and casual attitude we as a society have towards the chemicals that are in constant use. We receive a letter from our child's school that they are spraying and we assume that someone has done their homework and that our child is safe. We read about a new chemical that will be used in the production of strawberries and we assume it is safe. We are a society of assumers. If we all just took a stand in at least to question these "experts" that we assume are protecting our children and our food we would continue the legacy of Rachel Carson. Though that book was published in 1962 its relevance is still with us. Thanks Iris, for shining a spotlight on a topic that we assume someone is taking care of for us. Obviously you are not an assumer.

Ah, Dah, where to begin?

DDT did NOT kill the birds (it is a complete myth). It also did not kill people. In fact, it saved millions of people. The BAN on DDT has, in fact, killed millions of people, especially in Africa, although mosquito-borne diseases are now coming back in the USA, incluiding Palo Alto. The ban on DDT, as well as other similar chemicals, is a moral outrage. Rachel Carson is a mass killer. There is no way to defend her, if one has an ounce of moral feelings, or even moral thinkings!

Wow, as soon as it was posted, a Ditto-Head pounced to re-write history once again conerning DDT.
Sorry, bud, but a toxic chemical is a toxic chemical.
Web Link

"(Reuters) - Six years after the insect killer DDT was globally outlawed on grounds of environmental damage, two researchers say there are new reasons for doubting the chemical is harmful and are urging its use against malaria." Web Link

Those who support the ban on DDT are guilty of a holocaust worse than Hiter and Stalin and Pol Pot and Castro. In fact, it is not even close. Rachel Carson and her buddies, like Paul Ehrlich, are in the same camp with the above-named monsters. Actually, they are are even worse, because thir victims are primarily children.

When are we going to become rational about chemicals for better living? If we do, we will finally have become moral human beings.

C4BL ... and the DDT revisionism ... all based on ... "two researchers say there are new reasons for doubting the chemical is harmful"

2 researchers that probably bought futures in DDT and tried to get it sold again. 2 researchers do not create scientific consensus or even reasonable doubt, particularly if you do not know who they are, who they are working for and who is funding their "doubt".