Tim Tyler writes
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.

It's a technical term, it means not following the instructions on the
label. This is sometimes modified to include not *quite* following the
label.

It's just the same as cars and knives kill people when misused, as well
as a wide range of other unnatural causes of death. You wouldn't suggest
banning knives because some people kill others with them, for example.

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

Almost certainly due to misuse.
The giveaway is 'acute'.

Quite a few people in the world also die from 'acute' shortage of food.

:: 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.

No, it's rubbish.
Most really toxic fungal toxins are quite undetectable at the lethal
dose.

: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.

No, you are confusing 'food attacked by fungi' with 'food rendered toxic
by fungi', the two being quite distinct. Many foods are flavoured by
fungi (cheese, some soy products etc) and it's only food you do not
expect to taste 'fungal' that you reject. Of course most of the fungi
you reject are NOT toxic.

: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.

********. I quoted some of the info. ALL approved pesticides have a
full toxicology, far far more detailed than pharmaceuticals or materials
you find in the home (plastics and detergents for example).

And that is despite the fact that your consumption of residual pesticide
remnants and residues is at worst in microscopic quantities.

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.

They have been performed in a range of mammals and appropriate safety
levels set. If you followed your dictum then we should not be using any
modern plastics, paints and other things found in life. Indeed many of
them have been shown to be toxic, yet they are still used because people
want their utility.

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.

Labs are not particularly 'low disease', no high accumulation of animals
ever is. Further this does get detected and appropriate action taken as
required.

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

Then you are an idiot or quite ignorant about it.

: 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.

Yes but:

1) I could select less toxic plant foods.
2) I could use low toxicity cultivars.

Noting the strong relationship between plant toxins and pest resistance
(it's why the toxins are there in the first place) it would almost
certainly be safer to use plants bred for low toxin production and use
the much safer pesticides to control the pests.

Eating fruit and vegetables is important to good health.

Eating healthy meat and veg is, and pesticides help enormously here.
Not only that, but the abundance of food available today is DIRECTLY the
result of the introduction of safe effective pesticides.

Eating pesticides on the other hand is not required at all.

1) Usually undetectable levels.
2) You would get less food, of much poorer (ie infected) quality without
them. I am old enough to remember the 50's when few pesticides (pretty
well DDT only) was used, and remember picking caterpillars out of the
veg before cooking. Quite a common occurrence, in some years usual.



--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.