Environmental groups really dislike the weed killer 2,4-D. So much so, that they routinely play the "let's scare the public by calling it something else" game. What are the rules? Just make sure that whenever 2,4-D is mentioned, also refer to dioxin and Agent Orange so that everyone thinks they're the same. But they aren't. Not even close.
dioxin
In his Oct. 30 radio address, President Clinton announced efforts to protect Americans from "some of the most dangerous chemicals ever known." He incorrectly encouraged us to believe that very low exposures to certain chemicals are increasing our risk of cancer and other diseases.
He pointed his finger squarely at industry for releasing chemicals like dioxin, PCBs and mercury into the air we breathe and the water we drink. He then promised to protect families from these chemicals by requiring industry to tell us when they release even a tiny amount of certain chemicals.
Is the president advancing public health? Is he "empowering" us? No. The president's speech is unscientific rhetoric that promises to protect us from inconsequential health risks.