EDITORIAL

Dr. Philip Maffetone

For many years, the public has had its share of scares regarding foods that maim, pollution that disintegrates, and even toys that kill. From chemicals that cause cancer to natural foods that do the same, too many people either live in terror, or don't care about their health. While many of these problems stem from greed, one philosophy should become a rule of thumb: if there is any reasonable question regarding the safety of anything, by any sensible group who would not benefit directly or indirectly from any action taken then restrictions must be established. In other words, rather than waiting for enough people to be adversely affected by some questionable ingredient, it shouldn't be used. It can be as simple as that.

Scientists typically perform extensive testing on new products. Animals are often the target of the first line of "in vivo" experiments. Sometimes, real people become another group used to observe if any ill health problems develop as a result of using chemical X. But following this relatively short time trial, the entire population may be exposed. Essentially, we all become the test group used to observe the long term harm. At the same time, the product, or chemical, is often being sold at immense profits.

In addition to denying a new product or chemical entry to the market if its health affects are questioned, specificity should also prevail. Fluoride is a good example. This substance has long been thought to help in the prevention of tooth decay. Although the specific targeted group is children, fluoride is added to the general water supply. As a result, everyone, rather than just those susceptible, is exposed to fluoride whether they need it (or want it) or not. As Dr. George Goodheart says, "don't put it in the water, put it in the candy," where the specific need is thought to exist.