Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:42884 uk.rec.birdwatching:67307 uk.rec.gardening:144676 uk.rec.natural-history:14606 uk.business.agricultu113289

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.

: 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.

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

In principle, testing ought to be able to deal with the problem
with minimal adverse health consequences - but I believe this is
currently prohibitively expensive.

In such cases the use of fungicides may be currently better than the
alternatives.

However, if they wind up on the produce, consumers should expect to
see them on the label.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

In uk.rec.gardening Mike Humberston wrote:
: Tim Tyler wrote:

:In uk.rec.gardening Mike Humberston wrote:
:: Tim Tyler wrote:

: re Fungicides on strawberries

::Fungicides are not effective indefinitely.
:
:: Because they don't remain on the fruit?
:
:Because naturally there are limits to the volume of fungus any
:fungicide can prevent.

: Either the fungicide will be present in sufficient quantities to prevent
: growth of fungus or it won't, in which case the fungus will be able to grow.

Obviously this is not a black and white situation. There is a range of
inhibition.

::Eventually the forces of decay win out.
:
:: Because the fungicides are no longer present in sufficient quantities
:: for them to be effective?
:
:Because chemical transformations change them from fungicides into
:spent waste matter in the process of fungal attack.

: You mean the fungus metabolises the fungicide? If it is converted into
: metabolic products the it ceases to exist.

It certainly ceases to exist as an active fungicide. It is converted
into other forms.

::Fungicides merely delay the process - but if the food is sold in
::the interim they have served their purpose.
:
:: And the fruit is safe for the consumer to eat?
:
:That will depent on the fruit in question

: Why do you think that? Here we are talking about strawberries.

Nontheless - unlass you think every strawberry gets treated with
the same doses of the same fungicides.

:- and on your desired level of safely.

: I'm not sure what you mean by "desired level of safety". What you desire has
: nothing to do with whether something is toxic or not.

Toxicity is not a black and white issue - there are levels of toxicity.

For example, small doeses of toxins often have no effect - since our
body can cope with them. It is only when our defences are overwhelmed
that toxicity arises - and then it is often dose-dependent.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

On Sat, 24 May 2003 07:08:09 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Hämisch Macbeth" wrote in message
...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

we all die as well


This seems to be a common theme in your posts, perhaps your wife should
hide the sharp knives ?

you must remember in farming, arable or livestock, birth and death are
integral parts of the process and you just get used to them

Especially when you are the premature cause of both of them. I seem to
recall Himmler once said a similar thing about the numbers that died
in Auschwitz once. Eased his conscience no end.
--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster writes

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...

: Interesting stuff, something I have often been concerned about, I
: doubted the validity of a quick rinse and usually soak my hard fruits
: for a few hours prior to washing, of course this is not possible with
: soft fruit. I wondered about the effect of waxing on fruit, would
this
: not seal the crap in as well, I find some waxes need a quick soak in
: the sink with a little detergent before coming off!

Waxed on pesticides may indeed be a problem:

don't worry, just keep pouring on the detergent

then go back to the start of the thread where roundup was being discussed
and contemplate the tank mixes that might have been hazardous

Quite.

This Tim is a real cookie!

A marvellous example of the failure of education to show show some
people how to think.

I note he still hasn't actually dealt with the point,

Waxed on pesticides may indeed be a problem:

don't worry, just keep pouring on the detergent

then go back to the start of the thread where roundup was being discussed
and contemplate the tank mixes that might have been hazardous

I suspect that he is beginning to understand that pete has led him astray
with his enthusiasm for detergent.

Jim Webster

On Sat, 24 May 2003 08:28:31 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Oz" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster writes

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...

: Interesting stuff, something I have often been concerned about, I
: doubted the validity of a quick rinse and usually soak my hard fruits
: for a few hours prior to washing, of course this is not possible with
: soft fruit. I wondered about the effect of waxing on fruit, would
this
: not seal the crap in as well, I find some waxes need a quick soak in
: the sink with a little detergent before coming off!

Waxed on pesticides may indeed be a problem:

don't worry, just keep pouring on the detergent

then go back to the start of the thread where roundup was being discussed
and contemplate the tank mixes that might have been hazardous

Quite.

This Tim is a real cookie!

A marvellous example of the failure of education to show show some
people how to think.

I note he still hasn't actually dealt with the point,

Waxed on pesticides may indeed be a problem:

don't worry, just keep pouring on the detergent

then go back to the start of the thread where roundup was being discussed
and contemplate the tank mixes that might have been hazardous

I suspect that he is beginning to understand that pete has led him astray
with his enthusiasm for detergent.

Oh so familiar, unable to compete with well thought our reasoned
debate, so destroy the thread with a troll.

Do you not have some roses to spray with weedkiller?


--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..

Tim Tyler writes

Most large raw beans are pretty unpalatable.

Eh? No more so than most food plants.

That is the main
reason why it is thought that our ancestors didn't consume them -
and is likey to be a consequence of their toxicity.

Beans figure in the diets of pretty well all societies I can think of.
A valuable source of energy and protein.

Mind you, they would have known which were particularly toxic, and which
weren't, most likely from practical experience, in the same way edible
and poisonous mushrooms would have been identified.

They may not taste quite as bad as raw chilles - but so what?
I never claimed non-toxic food necessarily tasted good.

The difference in level of unpleasantness is HUGE.

Nor are chilles /that/ non-toxic. Chillies taste the way they do as a
defense against being eaten by mammals - and similar creatures. The
threats of their taste is not an empty one - consuming chillies causes
a range of unpleasant symptoms in the digestive track - and as a stress
response.

IT has little effect on the digestive tract, the effect is all in the
mouth. The chemical activates pain sensors, but is deactivated by acid
conditions, hence the relief obtained by swigging vinegar or eating a
lemon.

The stomach is even more acid than vinegar.

Indeed, capsaicin is classified is an "irritant poison" - and has been
responsible for human deaths.

Dose, remember. Not good stuff to inhale.

But red kidney beans will and have killed people voluntarily eating
them, chillies have never to my knowledge been a cause of death for this
reason.

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

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.

: 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. Most are 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.

In principle, testing ought to be able to deal with the problem
with minimal adverse health consequences - but I believe this is
currently prohibitively expensive.

Not really. The main problem is that in some EU harvests the organic
wheat production would be almost totally rejected, which is considered
politically 'difficult'.

In such cases the use of fungicides may be currently better than the
alternatives.

Better to use a safe fungicide than sell dangerous produce.
Quite.

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.

Personally I look forward to the time when levels of plant toxins are
quoted and safe levels set. Obviously you couldn't use the same safety
spec as for pesticides as you would have few, probably no, allowed food
plants. However it might avoid problems where conditions (such as bad
pest attacks) produce particularly high levels of natural toxins.

After all this precise situation killed a few people eating courgettes
(squash) is NZ a few years ago from curcubin poisoning in organic
courgettes under unusually bad aphid attack.

Solanin levels in new potato varieties are now, happily, checked after a
close shave with a variety that was in fact acutely toxic. Fortunately
it poisoned the breeder at the multiplication phase and was spotted in
time.

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

Tim Tyler writes

For example, small doeses of toxins often have no effect - since our
body can cope with them.

10/10

Levels of pesticides in produce are incredibly minute.

It is only when our defences are overwhelmed
that toxicity arises - and then it is often dose-dependent.

sigh

Not quite there yet but improving.

When the levels reach a toxic dose then the product is toxic.
It's always dose-dependent.

Note that 'toxic' could mean after observed adverse effects after multi-
generational testing.

One day, someone will do that for plant toxins too.

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

On Sat, 24 May 2003 08:57:11 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Tim Tyler writes

For example, small doeses of toxins often have no effect - since our
body can cope with them.

10/10

Levels of pesticides in produce are incredibly minute.

But cumulative. One apple a month, maybe no problem, 10 apples in a
day, quite a different story!

The add a carrot, add 10 carrots, not to mention the lettuce etc, etc,
etc

Stick with Organic, it's safer.


--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..

Jim Webster writes

I suspect that he is beginning to understand that pete has led him astray
with his enthusiasm for detergent.

Pete is killfiled due acute inability to learn.

TT is heading that way, although glimmers are showing.

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

"Oz" wrote in message
...

Pete is killfiled due acute inability to learn.

TT is heading that way, although glimmers are showing.

Don't feed the trolls!


--
J B

"J B" wrote in message
...
"Oz" wrote in message
...

Pete is killfiled due acute inability to learn.

TT is heading that way, although glimmers are showing.

Don't feed the trolls!

yes, there is a limit to how long you can go on feeding a donkey
strawberries

Jim Webster

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/

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

: :: 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

I've also found some concrete figures for England and Wales:

``Deaths from pesticide poisoning in England and Wales: 1945-1989.

Casey P, Vale JA.

Pesticide Monitoring Unit, National Poisons Information Service
(Birmingham Centre), Dudley Road Hospital, Birmingham, UK.

1. Data on deaths from pesticide poisoning occurring in England and Wales
between 1945 and 1989 (no data are available for 1954) have been
collated; pesticides were responsible for only 1012 (1.1%) of the 87,385
deaths from poisoning (excluding those due to carbon monoxide) occurring
over this 44 year period. At least 73% of all pesticide fatalities were
due to suicide and overall there was a predominance of males
(male:female ratio 2.4:1). No deaths from pesticide poisoning in
children under 10 years have been reported since 1974 although almost
50% of suspected pesticide poisoning incidents involve this age
group. 2. Herbicides were responsible for 787 (78%) fatal poisonings,
110 (11%) were caused by insecticides, 69 (6.8%) by rodenticides, 30
(3.0%) by wood preservatives and 16 (1.6%) by other pesticides. 3. The
herbicide, paraquat, was responsible for 570 of 1012 (56%) deaths and,
although there has been a progressive decline in the annual number of
deaths from paraquat poisoning since 1982, paraquat remains the most
common cause of fatal pesticide poisoning in England and
Wales. 4. Sodium chlorate caused 113 (11.2%) deaths, most of these
fatalities occurring between 1965 and 1983; only one death has been
recorded since 1984. The phenoxyacetate herbicides resulted in 50
deaths; 2,4-D was implicated most commonly. Sixty-eight deaths were due
to organophosphorus insecticides; demeton-S-methyl, malathion and
mevinphos were involved most frequently. Only eight deaths resulted from
organochlorine insecticides and two of these also involved an
organophosphorus insecticide. [...]'' - PMID: 7908817

Most pesticide deaths are likely to be lingering ones - rather than
straight poisonings. The cancer deaths are not likely to show up in
studies like this one.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

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.