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

: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'.

It does seem likely that these statistics are unlikely to cover many of
the slower deaths from pesticide exposure.

Some of the deaths will be things like suicides - i.e. they would happen
anyway - but by some other means.

However some other ones are like the deaths of the 26 children I cited -
who consumed the pesticide in their breakfasts.

Accidents. If the toxic chemical had not been around in the first
place they would never have happened. In such cases it's harder
to avoid pointing the finger at the pesticides making the environment
a more dangerous place by their presence.

::: 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.

I was quite accurate. Note that I went on immediately to say
"There /are/ some undetectable fungus toxins".

: Most really toxic fungal toxins are quite undetectable at the lethal
: dose.

My comment related to "fungal infections".

You seem to have changed this to "really toxic fungal toxins".

Don't you think that change is in danger of obliterating the
other range of cues which individuals might use to determine
infection - besides the taste of the toxin itself - including
the appearance and taste of the other parts of the fungus?

::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. [...]

Well, you will note that the former group /does/ contain the latter one.

Rejecting food with fungal infections will also reject food with
toxic fungal infections.

Most foodstuffs are attacked by rather visible and obvious forms
of fungus. Leave things out for a while and see. When food
goes mouldy, people usually throw it out - a practice which
takes any fungal toxins with them.

::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.

: ********.

It's true. Science doesn't offer certainty - and there are a very
large number of ways in which human health can be adversely affectd -
it's impossible to test them all - and testing is usually the only
way to be at all sure.

Of course there are ethical problems associated with testing
pesticides on humans. This makes things even harder - often
the very tests that are most needed can't legally be performed.

: 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.

Plastics tend to be inert. Detergents are often poisonous.

I can easily believe more effort is put into testing pesticides
than detergents - but that hardly means that they are safe.

: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.

I don't mind other people eating pesticides - if they choose to.

Basically what I want is more ability to control my own level
of pesticide consumption - so I can down-regluate it in areas
I am concerned about.

Doing that today would restrict the diversity of foods available
in my diet.

: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.

Yes they are. Disease is often a function of the environment.
Lab animals are in a highly artificial environment - and face
different challenges. For example normally there are no predators.
That might mean that running speed doesn't show up in
lifespan studies in the way that it usually would.

: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.

I mean that it's minimal compared to what it could be - not that
it doesn't protect people from pesticides at all. In other words the
safely level could usefully be many times higher - and the risk could
be made many times lower.

:: 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.

Well only up to a point - eventually you will run out of less-toxic
foods to switch to.

: 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.

You seem heavily in favour of spending pesticide research dollars
on eliminating natural food toxins - perhaps by breeding.

/Eventually/ I would rather have safe man-made toxins to deter
predators than poisonous natural ones. However - currently -
many of the natural toxins have their upsides - often in the
form of cancer prevention.

E.g.:

L-Canavanine
A Potential Chemotherapeutic Agent for Human Pancreatic Cancer
http://www.szp.swets.nl/szp/journals/pb363194.htm

Resveratrol - which belongs to a group of compounds known as stilbenes,
which are spontaneously synthesized on the surface of grapes as an immune
response to attack by fungal diseases - and improves heart health;

Glycosides:
http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/.../glucosin.html

....and Phytoestrogens:
http://www.herbalchem.net/Introductory.htm

I'm not sure it would be a good idea to breed such "toxic"
agents out of food - since one of the things they are good at
killing is human cancers.

....and at the moment I am not satisfied that enough is known
about the long-term effects of man-made pesticides to take
such steps. The natural toxins have been around longer,
our bodies have had a chance to get used to them - and
there has been more opportunity for study.

: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.

....amongst many other modern farming techniques - including the
use of machinery - and things like a global market in seeds and
produce.

Frankly, food abundance matters little to me personally these days. I
live in a western country - where there is more food than can be eaten,
and there's a plague of obesity on the land.

If there are food shortages - then by all means do what's necessary
to stop people from starving. However when food is plentiful, I
would rather have good quality food than even more masses of it.

: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.

I'm hoping in the future that food quality will improve - /and/ that
pesticide usage will decline.

I suspect that eventually mechanical barriers to pests will eventually
make many of today's pesticides redundant.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/