Tim Tyler writes
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

OK, so most people don;t choose pesticides to commit suicide with: so?
Also the data goes back to 45, when rather toxic products were in use.

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.

Pesticides cannot be carcinogenic if they are to be approved.

Unlike natural toxins, which can be and often are.

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

J B writes
"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!

It's coming to a natural close anyway.

He has comprehensively lost the argument and now is clutching at straws.

The killfile for morons beckons.

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

Jim Webster writes

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

I think the word is "ass".

--
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 11:45:40 +0100, Oz
wrote:


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.

Knives above a certain size are banned in UK.
The govt. is proposing to lock up people for up to 10 years for
killing people with a car.

--
martin

In article , martin
writes
On Sat, 24 May 2003 11:45:40 +0100, Oz
wrote:


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.

Knives above a certain size are banned in UK.

ITYM, *carrying* knives above a certain size is banned.

The govt. is proposing to lock up people for up to 10 years for
killing people with a car.


--
Malcolm

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
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

I think you really ought to read the websites you quote

Introduction
"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"

At this point you stopped your quote. But the next bit is far more
interesting

"There is a diversity of farming operations in Iran with more than 500
different pesticide compounds available for agricultural use. In our
previous study it was indicated that pesticides are the third most common
cause of poisoning and the principal cause of poisoning-related mortality in
Iran.2 There is also evidence of chronic occupational exposure to pesticides
in pesticide manufacturing factories as well as instances of acute
toxicity.3-5 For these reasons, this retrospective study was undertaken to
determine the extent and mortality of pesticide-related poisoning and to
assess the effects of variables such as age, season, sex and agent on
poisoning frequency."
So actually these are not consumers, these are producers and people working
in the manufacture
Working our way down the page we come across
"A total of 700 pesticide poisoning cases referred to either Loghman-Hakim
Hospital or reported to the TDPIC concerning the period between April 1,
1995 to September 21, 1997 were identified. In 65 instances, calls were made
to the TDPIC concerning patients who were subsequently referred to
Loghman-Hakim Hospital after receiving first-aid management such as
induction of vomiting, dilution of ingested stomach contents by water or
milk, etc. Cases included a variety of intentional (n=665, 93%), accidental
(n=39, 5.6%), occupational (n=9, 1.3%) and criminal (n=1, 0.1%) instances.
All cases in children, (n=36, 64%) were accidental. All occupational cases
occurred in workers at pesticide factories. Of 700 cases of pesticide
poisoning, 92% (n=644) occurred in adults. Overall, there were 365 females
(52%) and 335 males (48%). Among adults , 59.43%(n=383, 95% confidence
interval=59.39%-59.47%) were married and the remainder 40.57% (n=261, 95%
confidence interval=40.53%-40.61%) were unmarried and hence significantly
different (p0.01). The overall married to unmarried ratio was 1.5. The most
common route of pesticide exposure was by ingestion followed by dermal
absorption and inhalation. The highest frequency of poisoning (32%) was
found in the age range of 20-30 years (Fig. 1). One-third of patients
referred to Loghman-Hakim Hospital were from outside Tehran. The frequency
of pesticide poisoning was greater in spring (39%) and summer (35%) than
other times of the year. Sixty percent of cases were graded as mild, 27% as
moderate, and 13% as severe poisoning. In the majority of instances (85%),
patients presented to the hospital 6 to 10 hours after exposure. The
majority of cases (55%) were hospitalized for one day only. Sweating, slow
pulse, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and respiratory difficulties were
the most common clinical features of admission. In most cases, incorporating
all of the ingestion cases, lavage was instituted as the first therapeutic
step in hospital management. Ipecac syrup was never used. Frequencies of
poisoning and fatal outcomes by different types of pesticides are shown in
Table 1. Organophosphates were the most common cause of poisoning (52%)
followed by unknown compounds (20%), carbamates (12%), fumigants including
Al or Zn phosphide (8%), rodenticides (4%), herbicides (3%) and
organochlorines (1%). The overall mortality in this study was 7%, with 61%
being due to organophosphates followed by unknown pesticides (22%) and Al/Zn
phosphide (6%)."

Somehow you neglected to mention that 93% of those cases mentioned were
intentional. Indeed the page then goes on to say

"The high frequency of poisoning with pesticides revealed in the present
study supports our previous report.2 As indicated in the present study,
self-poisoning by pesticides in the age range of 20-30 years old is most
common, with a higher frequency in women, and a preponderance of married to
unmarried women. This might be due to social or familial problems. Most of
the self-poisoning instances with pesticides were among those who use poison
occupationally and therefore had easy access to such poisons. Although no
significant relation was found between poisoning events and socio-economic
status, it is, however, assumed that pesticides are the modality of choice
for low income strata in attempted suicide"


Perhaps you would like to explain how the fact that people commiting suicide
in the third world use pesticides because they are cheap makes these
products dangerous to people eating vegetables in the UK?

Jim Webster

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
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.

most pesticide deaths are suicides or accidents where children have drunk
out of the wrong bottle.
How does this relate to food safety?

Jim Webster

On Sat, 24 May 2003 09:00:36 +0100, Oz
wrote:

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.

Easy to see why you feel safe in your home group, no wonder you don't
want to get out much.. It really is a big world out here, come and
join us sometime.


--








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

I understand.

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

On Sat, 24 May 2003 11:49:33 +0100, Oz
wrote:

J B writes
"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!

It's coming to a natural close anyway.

He has comprehensively lost the argument and now is clutching at straws.

Not from where we stand, looks like your sheep dip theories just hit
rock bottom.

The killfile for morons beckons.

Better be quick before your made to look an sillier, if that were
possible.

Back to the SMASH advert in your own group, don't mind if we laugh at
you!
--








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

I understand.

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

On Sat, 24 May 2003 00:42:17 +0100, Mike Humberston
wrote:

Tim Tyler wrote:

The Friends of the Earth have a report that deals with some of
the fungicides used on strawberries in the UK in 2001:

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefi...isrupting.html

It is of little value though because it contains no quantitative information,
either about the amounts detected on strawberries or about the amounts required
to cause toxic effects.

More then enough to show we should steer well clear of the crap, and
more then enough to show we should take the bullshitters like you with
a pinch of salt.
--








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

I understand.

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

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/

Jim Webster wrote - or quoted:

: : :: 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing.
: : :
: : :So you claim - yet pesticides kill thousands anually.
:
: 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.

: most pesticide deaths are suicides or accidents where children have drunk
: out of the wrong bottle.

That has not been established - since the frequency of other
pesticide-caused deaths has probably not been so well documented.

: How does this relate to food safety?

It relates to /pesticide/ safety - and whether pesticides have "no direct
health cost" - as was claimed at the head of this message.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
: 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.

: Perhaps you would like to explain how the fact that people commiting suicide
: in the third world use pesticides because they are cheap makes these
: products dangerous to people eating vegetables in the UK?

That's not my claim - rather I'm being critical of the notion that
pesticides have "no direct health cost".

The pesticide situation in the UK needs improving. Banned chemicals
are still being found sprayed on produce. Regulations are no good if
they are unenforced.

A report on a recent government survey of UK pesticide usage:

``
TOXIC COCKTAIL IN FRUIT AND VEGETABLES
June 19, 20002 FOE

Friends of the Earth¹s analysis of the latest Government
survey of pesticide residue results reveal that a cocktail
of pesticides above legal and safety limits has been found
in a range of fruit and vegetables. The results were
published today by the Pesticides Residues Committee (PRC)
http://www.pesticides.gov.uk

Some of the key findings of the report a

* UK grown non-organic strawberries contained dicofol at
illegal levels. Dicofol is not approved for use on
strawberries in the UK. Dicofol is similar to DDT and is a
suspected hormone disrupter. The 3 organic strawberry
samples were free of residues.

* Organophosphate (OP) pesticides were found above legal
limits in, grapes, starfruit, nectarines and peaches. In
peaches and nectarines the OP methamidophos exceeded safety
levels for adults and toddlers, the PRC admitted that
³safety levels have been significantly eroded².

* All 'soft citrus' fruit contained residues including
imazalil at levels which the PRC described as "an
unacceptable risk for all consumer groups" but went on to
say that most of the residue was assumed to be in the peel.

* Potatoes were found to contain aldicarb above safety
levels. Aldicarb is a carbamate insecticide which works on
the nervous system, it is highly toxic and is classified by
the World Health Organisation as Œextremely hazardous¹.

* Iprodione, a suspected hormone disrupter, was found above
legal limits in UK celery although it is not approved for
use on celery here.

* Most grapefruits (83%) and lemons (93%) tested contained
pesticide residues.

* Lindane was found in mushrooms. This pesticide is now
banned in the EU and there are fear that exposure to this
pesticide may be linked to breast cancer.

* One sample of tomatoes from Spain contained residues of 6
different pesticides, none of the 5 organic samples of
tomatoes contained residues. * 97% of the fresh salmon
samples contained residues. DDT was found in fresh and
canned salmon (due to contamination of food or the
environment).

Pesticides were also found in bread but milk was found to be
free of residues.

The Pesticides Residues Committee states that none of the
samples present safety concerns for consumers but only looks
at exposure levels in individual foods, not the overall
cocktail of pesticides that people are being exposed to.
Recently Dr Brown, the chair of the Committee admitted that
there was "cause for concern" about the threat to young
children being exposed to pesticide residues in food. He
said was he "particularly worried" about the potential risks
where food was contaminated by several similar chemicals,
such as different forms of heavily restricted
organophosphate pesticide, which could combine to create a
"cocktail effect" (Independent on Sunday 9/6/02)

In recognition of the additional vulnerability of babies and
young children to pesticide residues new regulations will be
introduced on 1st July this year which effectively prohibits
residues in baby food by setting the allowable level at the
limit of detection. But no such protection is extended to
toddlers eating fresh fruit and vegetables.

Although more of the pesticides exceeding legal limits were
found in imported produce, nine UK samples contained illegal
levels of residues (above the Maximum Residue Level) and
nine other UK samples were found to contain pesticides which
are not approved for use in the UK. The Government has a
policy to minimise pesticide use. These results suggest it
is not doing enough to implement it.

It¹s very disappointing to see that high levels of
pesticides were found in UK foods as well as imports and
that illegal use of pesticides continues to be a problem. We
want the Government to take more action to crack down on
dodgy chemicals in imported food but it must also do more to
help farmers in the UK to get off the chemical treadmill².
''

- http://www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/UKFruits602.cfm
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
Jim Webster wrote - or quoted:

: : :: 1) There is no direct health cost, due to the approvals testing.
: : :
: : :So you claim - yet pesticides kill thousands anually.

:
: 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.

: most pesticide deaths are suicides or accidents where children have
drunk
: out of the wrong bottle.

That has not been established - since the frequency of other
pesticide-caused deaths has probably not been so well documented.


wrong again, it is very well documented in the website whose address you
posted


I refer you to
http://www.sums.ac.ir/IJMS/9934/abdollahi9934.html

perhaps you should read web pages before you quote them

Jim Webster

Tim Tyler writes

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

What slower deaths?
Give me a government website giving these consumer deaths.

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.

I'm sure this was not due to residues.

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.

So ban knives, cars and alarm clocks first.
Rather than something that is completely safe when used as directed.
By the way you are aware that for some years all UK spraystores must be
kept locked?

::: 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 of them are, so that's a stupid and misleading statement of no
relevance to the discussion.

: 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".

Fungal infections, gross ones, are detectable.
Mostly they are safe to eat.
Many fungal toxins are produced where there is no evidence of 'fungal
infections'.

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?

No, generally speaking.

::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.

No, because you would not detect many toxic (that is harmful levels) of
toxins by that route. Consequently it's an illusion. Rather like your
illusion that you can detect poisons by taste.

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.

That's the sporulating bodies, in most cases.
Fungi can (and usually do) attack stuff days or often weeks before
fruiting bodies are seen. That's pretty typical of many cereal diseases
for example. To control phoma in rape, which becomes visible in spring,
you spray in autumn when the fungus is spreading invisibly through the
plant. If a fungus needs live tissues, then it doesn't kill the tissues
it's infecting. Remember, many of these toxins do NOT affect plants.

::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.

Certainty is NOT the same as 'the levels of safety are well known'.
Nobody can ever be certain about anything, so it's a moronic thing to
say.

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.

They aren't needed. Animal and cells give more than adequate security,
particularly when combined with the huge safety margins and very low
incidence of residues near the allowed levels anyway.

: 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.

Take a look at pthalates used in plastic manufacture.
Take a look at the carcinogenic properties of benzene (in your fuel
tank).

Detergents are often poisonous.

Yet you wash your veg for ten minutes in them.

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

It does, because they must pass ALL the tests to be approved.

: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.

Remember antibiotics are a pesticide, too.
One little pill probably contains more than a lifetimes exposure to
pesticide residues.

I'll bet you will jump at the chance to swallow lots when you get your
first tooth abcess or have your first operation.

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.

Then don't buy organic. There are lots of pesticides available for
organic use. The Bt toxin for example.

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

Tough. Grow your own food.

: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.

Quite, and packing lots of animals together tends to a high disease
challenge.

Lab animals are in a highly artificial environment - and face
different challenges. For example normally there are no predators.

Predators are not diseases.
Few farm livestock have predators either.
No difference there.

That might mean that running speed doesn't show up in
lifespan studies in the way that it usually would.

Indeed it works fine.


: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.

At 50M quid a hit, more than has been spent on plant toxin research
since the dawn of time, it's most certainly not minimal but (in the view
of manufacturers) excessive overkill.

In other words the
safely level could usefully be many times higher -

How?

and the risk could
be made many times lower.

How do you know?
We are using the safest products ever found right now.

:: 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.

Indeed, but you could influence it.
Of course the big problem, and why no significant work has been done, is
that everyone expects plant toxins to be so dangerous that all vegetable
foods would have to be banned for safety reasons. Nobody wants to go
down that route.

: 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.

Hardly. We would need more and much better pesticides to keep pests off
the very highly disease susceptible plants that would result.

/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.

Claims rarely (if ever) supported by solid evidence.

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.

They may also *cause* human cancers, cell killers often do.

...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.

Hardly surprising since you have shown no evidence of solid knowledge of
pesticides or their toxicity other than scaremonger websites.

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.

1) So what if they have been around longer. Think strychnine.
2) Our bodies didn't evolve to consume a small range of food plants.
Take out the brassicae and solanum groups and there isn't much left.
3) There has been virtually NIL study on plant toxins.

So wrong on all three counts.

: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 -

Irrelevant. It does nothing more than could be and was done by hand
(better).

and things like a global market in seeds and
produce.

That's always been there (not that it has any relevance to your
submission).

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.

Take out pesticides and that would change within 12 months to world
famine. Your 'abundance' of food is only good for the current harvest.

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.

With pesticides you get both. Unfortunately.

: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.

So do I. The resultant shortages will mean fat profits for farmers
instead of the current less than breakeven.

I suspect that eventually mechanical barriers to pests will eventually
make many of today's pesticides redundant.

Dream on, you have no idea what you are talking about.

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