H. Kuska reply: billo, thank you for your specific examples. Your examples
definitely should clarify to the thread readers how restricted your criteria
is.

billo's statement: "or the toxicity in adverse effects -- recognizing that
one can both measure and separate compliant from noncompliant groups is
important. In the case of looking at pesticide/herbicide toxicity when used
as directed, that means actually looking at whether or not it is used as
directed." and " See, Henry, you don't just assume that because someone has
received instructions that they follow them. You ask the question, and
compare those who do and do not follow directions."

H. Kuska's comment: First I would like to point out that "periodic
recertification by completion of a program of education and examination."
Note the "and examination". Your suggested additional checks are impractical
in the "real world". Even observing and / or asking is not going to give 100
% assurance that a product is going to be used "as directed" when the
inspector is not present. Remember there would be a risk of losing a license
I again submit that this group is as close as one can come to "real world"
assurance that the product is being used as directed. We live in an
imperfect world. You would need closely controlled human subjects (100 %
utilization observation). This is impractical so animal studies are
substituted:

------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Effect of the herbicide glyphosate on enzymatic activity in pregnant
rats and their fetuses.

Authors: Daruich, Jorgelina; Zirulnik, Fanny; Sofia Gimenez, Maria.

Authors affiliation: Catedra de Bioquimica Molecular, Area Quimica
Biologica, Facultad de Quimica, Bioquimica y Farmacia, Universidad Nacional
de San Luis, San Luis, Argent.

Published in: Environmental Research (2001), 85(3), 226-231.

Abstract: To prevent health risk from environmental chems., particularly for
progeny, the authors studied the effects of the herbicide glyphosate on
several enzymes of pregnant rats. The authors studied 3 cytosolic enzymes;
isocitrate dehydrogenase-NADP dependent, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase,
and malic dehydrogenase in liver, heart, and brain of pregnant Wistar rats.
The treatment was administered during the 21 days of pregnancy, with 1 wk as
an acclimation period. The results suggest that maternal exposure to
agrochems. during pregnancy induces a variety of functional abnormalities in
the specific activity of the enzymes in the studied organs of the pregnant
rats and their fetuses.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------

But this does not meet your very restricted "criteria" since we are now not
looking at "humans". I still submit that your stated criteria as you have
restricted it is worthless. I am interested in how safe the product is in
real world usage (the intended use, not considering suicide, chemical
warfare, or other utilizations that the manufacture obviously cannot be held
accountable for). An example would be Teddy Bears with removable glass eyes.
A strict interpretation would be that they are safe when used as intended,
but practically they are unsafe in real world use.

The Minnesota paper gives me the type of information I am interested in; and
the reading that I have done suggests, to me, that obstetricians would base
their "real world" advice to pregnant mothers on studies of how dangerous
the product is in the "real world".

I have already presented the March of Dimes information. Here is another:
"Avoid working with chemicals, solvents, fumes and radiation." from
http://www.sogc.org/healthybeginnings/tips.htm home page is
http://sogc.medical.org/index.html These two recommendations are "real
world" recommendations.

Henry Kuska, retired



http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/