Salient. Official Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 42 No. 21. September 3 1979
[Introduction]
[unclear: st]term salient printed an article on the[unclear: mical]herbicide, 2.4,5-T. The firm that[unclear: mrkets]this chemical, Ivon Watkins-Dow[unclear: d]recently wrote to us seeking an[unclear: portunity]to present their views on the[unclear: mtinued]use of this chemical. Their article[unclear: m-xvrs]below.
Since its introduction in 1948, 2,4,5-T [unclear: s] been a mainstay in the battle to [unclear: lectively] control trees, brush and weeds [unclear: Itich] threaten the growth of rice, conifer [unclear: iafs], or rangeland grass; and which [unclear: late] hazardous situations on road [unclear: Mulders] and utility rights-of-way. During [unclear: s] period, the toxicity of 2,4,5-T has been [unclear: liaustively] studied by scientists worldwide. [unclear: c] great majority of these scientists agree [unclear: n] it is not hazardous to human or animal [unclear: I] under normal conditions of use and [unclear: i] under conditions of substantial [unclear: suse].
This enviable safety record doesn't count [unclear: h] special interest groups which oppose [unclear: e] use of virtually any of modern [unclear: riculture's] chemical tools. They have [unclear: en] exerting strong pressure to have 2,4,5- [unclear: oanned].
Their reasons range from the [unclear: otic]—"man-made chemicals defile other Earth" (letter to California [unclear: rtment] of Agriculture); to the [unclear: minal]—herbicides sprayed on the deep [unclear: tods] destroy marijuana crops hidden [unclear: are] (editorial in Agrichemical Age, May 1978.)
These groups, representing Vietnam War [unclear: otestors], anti-technologists and the Environmentalism Cause", don't [unclear: iderstand,] or care, that there often is no [unclear: bstitute] for a given chemical. And they [unclear: rtainly] will not acknowledge that without [unclear: rtilizers] and pesticides as much as one- [unclear: rth] of the world's population would [unclear: arve] (U.N. Food Conference 1974.)
You should know that for every [unclear: flammatory] charge from the "anti's" [unclear: ere] is a rational explanation; for every TV newspaper hatchet job, there is a [unclear: mplete] rebuttal.