In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes
:In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
:: Tim Tyler writes

::By contrast - for many pesticides - the compensation accrues to the
::those in the supply chain - who can generate more produce - and the
::health cost is borne by consumers.
:
:: 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing.
:
:So you claim - yet pesticides kill thousands anually.

: I don't think so.
: Please offer a .gov source from a first world country useage to show
: this where it's not misuse.

I should think pesticides killing people is - by definition - a misuse.

Here's a study giving some concrete figures regarding the extent of the
problem:

``Acute pesticide poisoning is an important cause of morbidity and
mortality worldwide. It has been estimated that around three million
severe cases of acute pesticide poisoning occur each year with some
220,000 deaths. Ninety-five percent of fatal pesticide poisonings occur
in developing countries.''

- http://www.sums.ac.ir/IJMS/9934/abdollahi9934.html

:: 2) There is most definitely a health cost for consuming produce
:: contaminated by fungi. Aflatoxins and vomitotoxins for example.
:
:Humans can easily detect many sorts of fungal infection - and can
:reject contaminated produce.

: Rubbish. [...]

My comment is accurate.

:There /are/ some undetectable fungus toxins. Aflatoxins on or in
:nuts are notoriously difficult to detect by the consumer.

: So are ergots, vomitotoxins and in fact pretty well all of them.

Many fungal toxins are easily detected by taste and/or appearance.

:However, if they wind up on the produce, consumers should expect to
:see them on the label.

: No need, current use of pesticides leaves minute, usually undetectable,
: residues which are perfectly safe.

Levels of safety of most pesticides are not known.

Scientific investigations have difficulty showing things are
safe in long-lived organisms like us. Lifetime trials are
frequently required - probably across multiple generations -
before you can claim something is safe with much in the way
of certainty. Such trials have not been performed in humans.

There are so many things that can go wrong. If pesticides
weaken your immune system (one of the most common effects)
than this likely won't show up in lab studies - since these
are typically done in relatively disease-free environments.

I don't regard today's level of testing pesticides to provide
much more than minimal protection.

: Personally I look forward to the time when levels of plant toxins are
: quoted and safe levels set.

Indeed.

: Obviously you couldn't use the same safety spec as for pesticides as
: you would have few, probably no, allowed food plants.

I think you'll find eating no food at all kills you fairly rapidly.

Eating fruit and vegetables is important to good health.
Eating pesticides on the other hand is not required at all.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/