Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:42939 uk.rec.birdwatching:67366 uk.rec.gardening:144803 uk.rec.natural-history:14651 uk.business.agricultu113360

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

:: wrong again, it is very well documented in the website whose address you
:: posted
:
:No it isn't.
:
:The overall frequency of pesticide related deaths is not known.

: What you mean is that there may be, or may not be, more than stated.
: In short, you don't know, and nor does anybody else because it's
: supposition.

: What can be said is that there is no evidence of it, and the work done
: on safety margins strongly suggests there are none.

It flatly states my assertion in the document in question:

``WHO estimates that the incidence of pesticide poisoning, already high in
developing countries, has doubled during the past 10 years. However, the
precise annual incidence throughout the world and their severity are
unknown.''

- http://www.sums.ac.ir/IJMS/9934/abdollahi9934.html

If you want to support the case that we know how many pesticide poisoning
cases there are, this is a rather poor document to cite in support -
since it clearly states just the opposite.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

Jim Webster writes
Organic, if left to the producers, as opposed to the cliques who seem to
rise to the top of the certifying bodies, will almost certainly be produced
with rather more thought to flavour than to supermarket specifications which
are more about visual appeal. Indeed it will be interesting to see if the
flavour of organic produce degrades as the supermarkets start stocking more
of it, and start insisting on long shelf lives and visual appeal.

Absolutely true, but it's possible to have poor quality mass produced
organic produce (which is increasingly happening) and high quality non-
organic produce. This is particularly true of small producers who cannot
bear the regulatory costs of organic production and are doing it as much
for love as money.

As anyone who has eaten stubbsy's (non-organic but utterly superb)
smoked salmon can attest.

It's not whether it has an organic label stuck on it or not, it's more
how it was produced in the first place.

--
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
: Jim:

:: wrong again, it is very well documented in the website whose address you
:: posted
:
:No it isn't.
:
:The overall frequency of pesticide related deaths is not known.

: What you mean is that there may be, or may not be, more than stated.
: In short, you don't know, and nor does anybody else because it's
: supposition.

: What can be said is that there is no evidence of it, and the work done
: on safety margins strongly suggests there are none.

It flatly states my assertion in the document in question:

``WHO estimates that the incidence of pesticide poisoning, already high in
developing countries, has doubled during the past 10 years. However, the
precise annual incidence throughout the world and their severity are
unknown.''

- http://www.sums.ac.ir/IJMS/9934/abdollahi9934.html

You moron, that's the people who are applying it getting contaminated.
If you want to press for second and third world governments properly
regulating the use of pesticides and educating on their use then I'm all
behind you. It is, however, really a health and safety in the workplace
problem.

If you want to support the case that we know how many pesticide poisoning
cases there are, this is a rather poor document to cite in support -
since it clearly states just the opposite.

No, you are just too blind to understand it.

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

In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes
:In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
:: 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.
:
:Ones from pancreatic cancer - for example:
:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ed&list_uids=1
:2594778&dopt=Abstract

: sigh Pancreatic cancer mortality and organochlorine pesticide
: exposure in California, 1989- 1996.

:...or liver cancer:
:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ed&list_uids=1
:0620518&dopt=Abstract

: sigh Cancer mortality and environmental exposure to DDE in the United
: States.

: These are OC's banned in the early 70's you prat.

You asked for:

"slower deaths from pesticide exposure"

When I give you "slower deaths from pesticide exposure" you now
say that's not what you wanted after all.

I wish you could learn to say what you *actually* want.

Please don't call me a prat. Such name calling reflects poorly on you.

::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.
:
:I'm merely pointing out that the safely of pesticides remains
:open to doubt.

: Idiot, everything remains open to doubt, that proves nothing.
: Now you really are clutching at straws.

:Government regulators have demonstrably been wrong before on the
:subject - with unpleasant consequences.

: Indeed, but on pesticides in the last 10 years?

I don't know of any quite so spectacular errors recently - but these
are early days. You're hardly giving much of a chance for their
errors to be exposed ;-)

::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. [...]
:
:Not if you simply put your trust in the government regulators
:as guardians of the truth, no.

: Excessively paranoid is how the chemical manufacturers describe them.

I'm sure the chemical manufacturers would be happier if their products
could go straight onto the market - with no enforced testing at all.

:They have a lot of pesticides to examine - and don't have
:unbounded resources.

: They do have unbounded resources, the chemical companies pay for it all.

Reference to a dictionary should quickly resolve this issue.

:I expect to see more mistakes - though perhaps not quite on the
:grand scale of previous screw-ups.

: Scale is important. Minor 'mistakes' in the usual refinement of
: knowledge are to be expected. However I do not expect these to harm
: consumers, the animal testing and the very large safety margins should
: see to that.

I'm a good deal less confident than you. I think many people today
in the UK are suffering from exposure to pesticides. Pinning their
symptoms on the pesticide makers may represent a challenge, though.

[...]

::Detergents are often poisonous.
:
:: Yet you wash your veg for ten minutes in them.
:
:Uh - how do you know how I treat my vegetables!?!
:
:I never put my vegetables anywhere near detergents.

: Ah, so the URL suggesting you should was to mislead others.
: Right.

What URL are you referring to?

::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.
:
:You presume an exhaustive set of tests. A false presumption.

: It's as exhaustive as can reasonably be done.
: Much more exhaustive than is needed.
: Covers the arses of the pesticide directorate.

Arses that have been exposed in the past, I note.

::: 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.
:
:Of sorts.

: Nope, they are.

That's what "of sorts" means.

:: One little pill probably contains more than a lifetimes exposure to
:: pesticide residues.
:
:On what scale?

: Take your pick, total active or therapeutic dose.

So - you're talking "grams"?

I don't believe it - this is a nonsense statistic.

::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. [...]
:
:You seem to have "a thing" about organic produce.
:
:It seems to be contrary to the evidence suggesting pesticide residues
:are lower on organic produce.

: It's very rarely tested, and rarely for organic pesticides.

Doesn't it need to pass through much the same regulatory testing as
everything else intended for human consumption?

::Doing that today would restrict the diversity of foods available
::in my diet.
:
:: Tough. Grow your own food.
:
:Yes, I do. I just have not yet managed to grow *all* my own food.

: Eat a smaller range or change your diet or get a bigger plot.

I'm working on the last one. It's not just size, though - it's time -
since the garden also needs working.

[...]

:: 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.

[...]

::and the risk could be made many times lower.
:
:: How do you know?
:
:It stands to reason that we are not yet on the pinaccle of pesticide
:safety.

: We may or may not be. I would hope for improvements, but many agchem
: companies are cutting down on research due to the very high cost of
: approvals.

Any research is likely to build on the knowledge we already have.

Unfortunately one of the documents cited here recently suggested
global pesticide poisonings were still on the rise. That
doesn't bode terribly well for safety.

However in the long term, I'm optimistic - we will figure out
how to avoid poisoning ourselves eventually.

:We are still in the biotech dark ages - there's very much we
:don't know - and ignorance is dangerous.

: Biotech? You approve of GM cultivars?
: I am amazed.
: But yes, they could well help.

I merely mean "biological technology". Perhaps I should have
used the term "biological science" instead.

FWIW, I think GM cultivars will prove to be of great importance
and significance.

However, many of the same sorts of safety issues surrounding
pesticides will apply there - a healthy level of paranoia
may be beneficial there also.

::: 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.
:
:I do try to do that. I also try to have a very diverse diet -
:in an attempt to prevent too much of any one thing causing harm.

: What crops are you growing this year [...]

Some of the things I've grown (or am growing) this year:

Basil, Broccoli, Cabbage (black), Cabbage (red), Celery,
Chervil, Chickory, Chickpea, Chop Suey, Collard, Coriander,
Corn salad, Cress (curly), Cress (land), Cress (water),
Fennel, Flax, Kale (red russian), Lettuce, Mibuna, Mizuna,
Mustard (red), Mustard (yellow), Mustard (spinach), Pak
Choi, Spinach (perpetual), Radish, Rape, Rape (salad),
Rocket (salad), Rocket (wild), Sesame, Sunflower, Texel,
Turnip, Alfalfa, Aduki, Clover (red), Fenugreek, Lentils
(puy), Mung, Pea, Soya, Amaranth, Buckwheat, Corn, Kamut,
Quinoa, Rye, Spelt, Wheat, Raspberries, Taeberries,
Loganberries, Wolfberries, Black Currants, Gooseberries,
Hazel nuts, Apricots, broad beans, peas, onions, garlic,
purple sprouting broccoli, swiss chard.

: and what percentage of your total food intake (calories) do home
: grown crops amount to?

Most of my calorie intake comes from fruit, nuts, oils and seeds.
I hardly grow any of them. The fruit I grow are almost all berries.

I estimate I currently grow about 10% of my calories for the year -
if that.

::: 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.

: Left in case you figure out an answer.

It's possible. I believe what I said on this point before was that
I thought in the long term such a strategy might produce beneficial
results - but that we didn't currently know enough to implement it
safely.

As I mentioned, the supposed plant toxins have some beneficial side
effects. "Hormesis" - as it's sometimes called. Engineering or breeding
them out without proper understanding of their roles may prove
counter-productive.

::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.
:
:We know a fair bit indirectly about plant toxins from the study of
:human nutrition.

: Actually we no sod all.

You like leaving out qualifications, don't you? ;-)

:It may not have been medicine's most explored area - but
:to say we know "virtually NIL" on the subject seems like
:an overstatement to me.

: Give me some examples of LD50, noel and content of a few food plant
: toxins then.

Some other day, perhaps - since doing so would prove nothing.

::: 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).
:
:You're mistaken there...

: Hardly, I am a farmer.

Think for a moment about what you're saying, then.

::and things like a global market in seeds and produce.
:
:: That's always been there (not that it has any relevance to your
:: submission).
:
:...and there.

: You are still wrong. Like most farmers I know a lot about seed
: development and production.

Perhaps read your own words again, then. You are apparently
claiming that a global market in seeds and produce existed before
the birth of the universe.

::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.
:
:Rather obviously, I'm talking about growing a greater proportion of
:things "under glass" - or in controlled environments.

: To feed the world?

Yes.

: speechless at the stunning level of ignorance

Don't underestimate technological progress.

:You may have noticed that there's been something of a trend in that
:direction over the last hundred years.

: Not in the UK, it's almost zero now other than for cut flowers.

....and watercress, and tomatoes - and an increasing number of other
things.

: Far too expensive.

Expense is one of the main problems - but prices are falling. I expect
them to continue to do so.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

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

:Exactly - rather than look in the report cited you chose to only examine
:some tables from it.
:
:The full report contained the information you claimed was missing.

: And showed you were misleading people. (again)

No it didn't.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

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

::: wrong again, it is very well documented in the website whose address you
::: posted
::
::No it isn't.
::
::The overall frequency of pesticide related deaths is not known.
:
:: What you mean is that there may be, or may not be, more than stated.
:: In short, you don't know, and nor does anybody else because it's
:: supposition.
:
:: What can be said is that there is no evidence of it, and the work done
:: on safety margins strongly suggests there are none.
:
:It flatly states my assertion in the document in question:
:
:``WHO estimates that the incidence of pesticide poisoning, already high in
: developing countries, has doubled during the past 10 years. However, the
: precise annual incidence throughout the world and their severity are
: unknown.''
:
: - http://www.sums.ac.ir/IJMS/9934/abdollahi9934.html

: You moron, that's the people who are applying it getting contaminated.

Surely important to the "overall frequency of pesticide related deaths".

: If you want to press for second and third world governments properly
: regulating the use of pesticides and educating on their use then I'm all
: behind you. It is, however, really a health and safety in the workplace
: problem.

Caused by the presence of highly toxic substances - and not /just/ in
the workplace - diffusing into the environment:

Air Monitoring Finds Toxic Pesticides Drifting From California Farm Fields
Airborne Poisons Found in More than 60 Percent of State Tests
- http://www.safe2use.com/pesticidenews/ca-air.htm

Pesticides Can Travel Thousands of Miles by Air
- http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0207a...pollution.html
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

In article ,
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.

2) There is most definitely a health cost for consuming produce
contaminated by fungi. Aflatoxins and vomitotoxins for example.
My problem with the views of you guys is your apparent certainty about
this.

You would have been among the people arguing that organochlorines had
never been shown to be hazardous. Are you now?

I will still grow what I can myself. I don't like eating carrots that I am
advised to peel, and cut off the top cm. when I can grow my own with a
mubh superior taste with no problems and no pesticides.

I accept your comments about growing strawberries for example, ( about the
difference of growing in vast acreages). I use very insecticides and no
herbicides on my allotment.

The three pests I get, are white flies on brassicas, but they don't do
significant damage to my crop. The allotment site is rife with them. When
I used to spray, I gave up, because there were many more around which soon
took their place. (No I don't think using systemic options that afford
protection for 3 weeks is worth the risks). Black fly on Broad beans is a
problem on the Spring sown ones only, which I control with washong up
liquid or pyrethrum.

The other problem is milldew on Gooseberries. I thought that good pruning
was going to deal with this, but have decided to get new stock with some
resistant properties, as soon as this crop is in.

Other pests are not a significant problem.

I fully accept that the scale of agriculture is quite different, but also
think that the self certainty about the rightness of using chemical
control for everything, and the general conservatism of the industry,
along with the domination of agriculture by established big business
stifles much more innovative approaches that could be made.

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago

"Oz" wrote in message
...

Absolutely true, but it's possible to have poor quality mass-produced
organic produce (which is increasingly happening) and high quality non-
organic produce. This is particularly true of small producers who cannot
bear the regulatory costs of organic production and are doing it as much
for love as money.

While politicians may be raving about the increase in organic, I have talked
to a couple of organic dairy farmers who would go back to conventional but
cannot afford to because this would mean paying back the conversion grant.
The economics of organic production are getting rough, the supermarkets have
started winding down the price of organic milk and other organic produce
will follow.


As anyone who has eaten stubbsy's (non-organic but utterly superb)
smoked salmon can attest.


It's not whether it has an organic label stuck on it or not, it's more
how it was produced in the first place.

When I did the first ring round to get people on Farmdirect that was an
interesting experience. I came across a lot of people who were passionate
about the value of organic production, but their passion was only matched
for their contempt for the soil association.
If someone is willing to set to and produce decent food to the best of their
ability, and do this to a set of standards they believe in, then I have
nothing but respect for them. But I am afraid that if something has to be
flown into the country, it isn't organic any more, no matter what some
certifying authority says. The idea that food miles are more virtuous than
roundup is one for the logic choppers and 'how many angels dance on the head
of a pin' brigade

Jim Webster

"Robert Seago" wrote in message
...
I fully accept that the scale of agriculture is quite different, but also
think that the self certainty about the rightness of using chemical
control for everything, and the general conservatism of the industry,
along with the domination of agriculture by established big business
stifles much more innovative approaches that could be made.

Actually I suspect the end price stifles innovation.

Lots of things that could be done, but damned few when the you can buy a
tonne of malting barley for the price of fifty pints of bitter

Jim Webster

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

it is an interesting point. I think that anyone with hands on food
experience knows that organic can taste better than some conventional.
When
our house cow is dry we end up buying organic milk. This was because it
was
the only milk we could buy that was not pasteurised, homogenised and
standardised. I came to the conclusion that these three processes render
milk virtually undrinkable. The organic we found was at least only
pasteurised so was merely disappointing as opposed to actively unpleasant.
The same could be said for meat. Because of the cost of organic grain,
most
organic beef will be grass finished. Personally I am a great believer in
grass-finished beef because the flavour is so much stronger and superior
to
grain finished (although the latter may well be more succulent.).
Our own milk which is not pasteurised, homogenised or standardised is
better
than organic, our own beef, grass finished, is on a par with organic. In
these cases it is not that organic has any intrinsic advantages, it just
uses certain procedures that are known to give better flavour (or in the
case of milk, doesn't use certain procedures beloved of the supermarkets
that extend shelf life but ruin the flavour.)
As for any health benefit, it has been known for a long time that if you
cut
stress you tend to feel better and your health will probably pick up. If
you
are worried about various residues, then eating organic, even if
contaminated with the same residues, will probably reduce your stress
level
and you will probably be healthier.
Because the levels that come through on conventional products are so low,
it
almost certainly doesn't matter, from a health point of view, whether it
is
being switched for organic or not. It is more a trading standards issue
rather than a public health issue. Something along the lines of buying
knock
off designer label stuff in a street market.
Organic, if left to the producers, as opposed to the cliques who seem to
rise to the top of the certifying bodies, will almost certainly be
produced
with rather more thought to flavour than to supermarket specifications
which
are more about visual appeal. Indeed it will be interesting to see if the
flavour of organic produce degrades as the supermarkets start stocking
more
of it, and start insisting on long shelf lives and visual appeal.

Hear, hear to all of this. But what's this about "_if_ the flavour of
organic produce degrades"? I can't detect any flavour difference in
supermarket organic produce now! I go to farm outlets or local markets if I
want decent veg - and it then doesn't make a lot of difference whether I buy
organic or not. It's down to the varieties grown, the freshness, the
practices of the growers and their competence.

Tim Tyler writes

: - http://www.sums.ac.ir/IJMS/9934/abdollahi9934.html

: You moron, that's the people who are applying it getting contaminated.

Surely important to the "overall frequency of pesticide related deaths".

We are discussing hazard to consumers, remember?
You have no case, remember?

: If you want to press for second and third world governments properly
: regulating the use of pesticides and educating on their use then I'm all
: behind you. It is, however, really a health and safety in the workplace
: problem.

Caused by the presence of highly toxic substances - and not /just/ in
the workplace - diffusing into the environment:

Workplace. Not consumers.

Air Monitoring Finds Toxic Pesticides Drifting From California Farm Fields
Airborne Poisons Found in More than 60 Percent of State Tests
- http://www.safe2use.com/pesticidenews/ca-air.htm

Fair bit of CO too, I expect.

You are forgetting it's the dose that counts.
If this were a problem, then it's one for the federal/state government
to sort out.


--
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:

: These are OC's banned in the early 70's you prat.

You asked for:

"slower deaths from pesticide exposure"

When I give you "slower deaths from pesticide exposure" you now
say that's not what you wanted after all.

We have been talking about modern sprays, not stuff last sprayed 30
years ago before regulations were properly imposed. I pointed out
several times that quoting DDT stuff was irrelevant to today's products
and should be ignored.

I wish you could learn to say what you *actually* want.

I wish you would read what is said.

:Government regulators have demonstrably been wrong before on the
:subject - with unpleasant consequences.

: Indeed, but on pesticides in the last 10 years?

I don't know of any quite so spectacular errors recently - but these
are early days. You're hardly giving much of a chance for their
errors to be exposed ;-)

Idiot. It's not early days. Initial introduction of modern pesticides in
the 50's and 60's. Some problems identified in the 60's. Dangerous stuff
banned in the early 70's. Testing increasingly extended to about the mid
80's.

::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. [...]
:
:Not if you simply put your trust in the government regulators
:as guardians of the truth, no.

: Excessively paranoid is how the chemical manufacturers describe them.

I'm sure the chemical manufacturers would be happier if their products
could go straight onto the market - with no enforced testing at all.

Absolutely not. The costs of claims for damages could break them for
what are, after all, relatively low margin products.

:They have a lot of pesticides to examine - and don't have
:unbounded resources.

: They do have unbounded resources, the chemical companies pay for it all.

Reference to a dictionary should quickly resolve this issue.

Don't be pedantic.

:I expect to see more mistakes - though perhaps not quite on the
:grand scale of previous screw-ups.

: Scale is important. Minor 'mistakes' in the usual refinement of
: knowledge are to be expected. However I do not expect these to harm
: consumers, the animal testing and the very large safety margins should
: see to that.

I'm a good deal less confident than you. I think many people today
in the UK are suffering from exposure to pesticides.

With totally no evidence, and good evidence to show completely the
contrary.

Pinning their
symptoms on the pesticide makers may represent a challenge, though.

Always hard with imaginary symptoms, or imaginary or wrong proposed
causes.

::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.
:
:You presume an exhaustive set of tests. A false presumption.

: It's as exhaustive as can reasonably be done.
: Much more exhaustive than is needed.
: Covers the arses of the pesticide directorate.

Arses that have been exposed in the past, I note.

Where? DDT? They have all retired long ago.

:: Remember antibiotics are a pesticide, too.
:
:Of sorts.

: Nope, they are.

That's what "of sorts" means.

So why try and quibble?

:: One little pill probably contains more than a lifetimes exposure to
:: pesticide residues.
:
:On what scale?

: Take your pick, total active or therapeutic dose.

So - you're talking "grams"?

I don't believe it - this is a nonsense statistic.

Lesse.
A gram of penicillin (my very first exposure to antibiotics, first
tablet, some seven years ago).

Lets take strawberries, clearly a well sprayed product, particularly the
imported stuff. Rough estimate that 5% had residues of 0.1 mg/kg.

10kg at 0.1 mg/kg gives you 1mg but only 5% had residues so

200kg of strawberries gives you 1mg residues

so 200,000 kg or 200 tons gives you 1 gm residues.

Assume all veg has the same level of residues as strawberries (highly
unlikely since they have been singled out as having more residues than
most stuff).

If you eat 1kg of veg/day, then 200T is 200,000 days or 550 years.

So sorry, I was wrong, it's more like ten lifetimes (even more if you
take the 5-day course!).

Hardly scary.

::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. [...]
:
:You seem to have "a thing" about organic produce.
:
:It seems to be contrary to the evidence suggesting pesticide residues
:are lower on organic produce.

: It's very rarely tested, and rarely for organic pesticides.

Doesn't it need to pass through much the same regulatory testing as
everything else intended for human consumption?

Yes, but they have been using products approved many decades ago which
very few conventional farmers use because they are typically highly
toxic, not very effective and expensive. In the last few years several
have been banned. Some examples a

derris - rotenone - estimated human lethal dose 300-500 mg/kg.
carcinogen.
nicotine - LD50 rats 50-60 mg/kg toxic by ingestion, inhalation, skin.

heavy metal compounds we already discussed.

For comparison a nasty organophosphorous dimethoate has
LD50 rats at 4000 mg/kg and you need less/ha.

Certainly if I was asked to spray a field with derris or nicotine, I
would refuse.

I doubt anyone has developed tests to look at residue levels for these
and I don't remember seeing them on the list of residue levels tested
for.


::Doing that today would restrict the diversity of foods available
::in my diet.
:
:: Tough. Grow your own food.
:
:Yes, I do. I just have not yet managed to grow *all* my own food.

: Eat a smaller range or change your diet or get a bigger plot.

I'm working on the last one. It's not just size, though - it's time -
since the garden also needs working.

[...]

:: 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.

[...]

::and the risk could be made many times lower.
:
:: How do you know?
:
:It stands to reason that we are not yet on the pinaccle of pesticide
:safety.

: We may or may not be. I would hope for improvements, but many agchem
: companies are cutting down on research due to the very high cost of
: approvals.

Any research is likely to build on the knowledge we already have.

Unfortunately one of the documents cited here recently suggested
global pesticide poisonings were still on the rise. That
doesn't bode terribly well for safety.

However in the long term, I'm optimistic - we will figure out
how to avoid poisoning ourselves eventually.

:We are still in the biotech dark ages - there's very much we
:don't know - and ignorance is dangerous.

: Biotech? You approve of GM cultivars?
: I am amazed.
: But yes, they could well help.

I merely mean "biological technology". Perhaps I should have
used the term "biological science" instead.

FWIW, I think GM cultivars will prove to be of great importance
and significance.

However, many of the same sorts of safety issues surrounding
pesticides will apply there - a healthy level of paranoia
may be beneficial there also.

::: 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.
:
:I do try to do that. I also try to have a very diverse diet -
:in an attempt to prevent too much of any one thing causing harm.

: What crops are you growing this year [...]

Some of the things I've grown (or am growing) this year:

Basil, Broccoli, Cabbage (black), Cabbage (red), Celery,
Chervil, Chickory, Chickpea, Chop Suey, Collard, Coriander,
Corn salad, Cress (curly), Cress (land), Cress (water),
Fennel, Flax, Kale (red russian), Lettuce, Mibuna, Mizuna,
Mustard (red), Mustard (yellow), Mustard (spinach), Pak
Choi, Spinach (perpetual), Radish, Rape, Rape (salad),
Rocket (salad), Rocket (wild), Sesame, Sunflower, Texel,
Turnip, Alfalfa, Aduki, Clover (red), Fenugreek, Lentils
(puy), Mung, Pea, Soya, Amaranth, Buckwheat, Corn, Kamut,
Quinoa, Rye, Spelt, Wheat, Raspberries, Taeberries,
Loganberries, Wolfberries, Black Currants, Gooseberries,
Hazel nuts, Apricots, broad beans, peas, onions, garlic,
purple sprouting broccoli, swiss chard.

: and what percentage of your total food intake (calories) do home
: grown crops amount to?

Most of my calorie intake comes from fruit, nuts, oils and seeds.
I hardly grow any of them. The fruit I grow are almost all berries.

I estimate I currently grow about 10% of my calories for the year -
if that.

::: 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.

: Left in case you figure out an answer.

It's possible. I believe what I said on this point before was that
I thought in the long term such a strategy might produce beneficial
results - but that we didn't currently know enough to implement it
safely.

As I mentioned, the supposed plant toxins have some beneficial side
effects. "Hormesis" - as it's sometimes called. Engineering or breeding
them out without proper understanding of their roles may prove
counter-productive.

::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.
:
:We know a fair bit indirectly about plant toxins from the study of
:human nutrition.

: Actually we no sod all.

You like leaving out qualifications, don't you? ;-)

:It may not have been medicine's most explored area - but
:to say we know "virtually NIL" on the subject seems like
:an overstatement to me.

: Give me some examples of LD50, noel and content of a few food plant
: toxins then.

Some other day, perhaps - since doing so would prove nothing.

::: 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).
:
:You're mistaken there...

: Hardly, I am a farmer.

Think for a moment about what you're saying, then.

::and things like a global market in seeds and produce.
:
:: That's always been there (not that it has any relevance to your
:: submission).
:
:...and there.

: You are still wrong. Like most farmers I know a lot about seed
: development and production.

Perhaps read your own words again, then. You are apparently
claiming that a global market in seeds and produce existed before
the birth of the universe.

::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.
:
:Rather obviously, I'm talking about growing a greater proportion of
:things "under glass" - or in controlled environments.

: To feed the world?

Yes.

: speechless at the stunning level of ignorance

Don't underestimate technological progress.

:You may have noticed that there's been something of a trend in that
:direction over the last hundred years.

: Not in the UK, it's almost zero now other than for cut flowers.

...and watercress, and tomatoes - and an increasing number of other
things.

: Far too expensive.

Expense is one of the main problems - but prices are falling. I expect
them to continue to do so.

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

Robert Seago writes
In article ,
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.

2) There is most definitely a health cost for consuming produce
contaminated by fungi. Aflatoxins and vomitotoxins for example.

My problem with the views of you guys is your apparent certainty about
this.

With good reason.

You would have been among the people arguing that organochlorines had
never been shown to be hazardous. Are you now?

DDT is fine used in small amounts. The problem is that it does not
biodegrade and is not well excreted by mammals. Used the way w.europe
did, in small quantities on very few crops it might (but probably
wouldn't) have been OK. Used in the US many times/annum on hundreds of
millions of acres every year (not to mention in india, china and russia)
it most certainly wasn't. That's why it was banned worldwide (except
russia and china went on using it - despite what they said) in the 70's.

I have no idea whether it would pass existing toxicity tests, almost
certainly not as some of it's breakdown products are apparently
carcinogens. It would certainly easily fail on biodegradeablility.

For malaria control in third world houses, where the total world usage
would probably be measured in a few tons, I would support it's informed
use. There are very good reasons for this.

I will still grow what I can myself. I don't like eating carrots that I am
advised to peel, and cut off the top cm. when I can grow my own with a
mubh superior taste with no problems and no pesticides.

Here I have given up. Too many umbelliferae in the area (cowparsely and
relatives) means root fly is guaranteed every year.

I accept your comments about growing strawberries for example, ( about the
difference of growing in vast acreages). I use very insecticides and no
herbicides on my allotment.

The swiss chard gets cabbage white about one year in three.
The courgettes get viral attacks (no spray for that).
The climbing beans/runners get aphid attack, but if left predators
control this well as long as the fly comes in early.

but I haven't used an insecticide for 10 years.

Paraquat, sometimes roundup is a handy weedkiller.
Gets used once or twice a year.

A dose of bag npk about once every two years.

The three pests I get, are white flies on brassicas, but they don't do
significant damage to my crop. The allotment site is rife with them. When
I used to spray, I gave up, because there were many more around which soon
took their place. (No I don't think using systemic options that afford
protection for 3 weeks is worth the risks).

Whitefly? Do you mean the woolly aphid?
Funnily I haven't come across real whitefly as a brassica problem.

Black fly on Broad beans is a
problem on the Spring sown ones only, which I control with washong up
liquid or pyrethrum.

The synthetic pyrethrums are probably better and safer than pyrethrum.
I've put the book away, so I can't look it up.

The other problem is milldew on Gooseberries. I thought that good pruning
was going to deal with this, but have decided to get new stock with some
resistant properties, as soon as this crop is in.

Ahh, yes. There are some good, safe, wildewicides but varietal control
is easier. If it's effective, often it's not.

I fully accept that the scale of agriculture is quite different, but also
think that the self certainty about the rightness of using chemical
control for everything, and the general conservatism of the industry,
along with the domination of agriculture by established big business
stifles much more innovative approaches that could be made.

You completely misread farmer usage of pesticides. They are a very major
cost and a pain to apply with the heavy regulations (eg on wind). We all
try and use as little as possible as a consequence. Preventative
treatment allows this particularly well.

If your remember my infection sequence the typically you miss the first
generation (only one plant, maybe one leaf, out of millions in a field).
Now if you spray then, usually with a very low dose (1/2 to 1/4 or even
less) then you seriously inhibit the initial foci and protect the rest
of the crop from infection. Almost all fungicides (and even some
insecticides and herbicides) are FAR better at preventing incoming
infection than eradicating an existing one, so even these low doses
protect the unaffected plants. You thus reduce the innoculum and stop
the second generation of infection in it's tracks. You can repeat this
every three to six weeks depending on pest and product. An established
field-wide infection is virtually unstoppable, even with full rates, and
very significant damage occurs. The net result is much less spray, and
much cleaner crops.

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

Martin Rand writes

Hear, hear to all of this. But what's this about "_if_ the flavour of
organic produce degrades"? I can't detect any flavour difference in
supermarket organic produce now! I go to farm outlets or local markets if I
want decent veg - and it then doesn't make a lot of difference whether I buy
organic or not. It's down to the varieties grown, the freshness, the
practices of the growers and their competence.

I would agree.

Once, many decades ago, I worked on a large vegetable farm.

On my way home I took veg fresh from the field (cabbage, caulifower,
spring cabbage, sprouts, spuds etc). Cut to cook time was often under
one hour.

The produce was splendid. Exceptional flavour.

Buy the same stuff, from the same field, and you are talking circa 24
hours after cutting. The effect on flavour is highly marked. In fact I
wouldn't have believed it was the same produce if I hadn't seen it come
out of our own sacks.

I have seen several double blind trials comparing organic and
conventional produce and they can never tell the difference except for
(real) organic bread (which tasted 'musty'). With all due respect to our
organic egg producers I couldn't tell the difference from genuine free
range (produced on this farm) and battery eggs. I am pretty good at
identifying things (and their absence) by taste, to the irritation of my
wife when she cooks.

--
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:

:: Tough. Grow your own food.

However in the long term, I'm optimistic - we will figure out
how to avoid poisoning ourselves eventually.

Probably about the same time people stop committing suicide, are
careless at work and stop murdering each other.

Don't hold your breath.

:We are still in the biotech dark ages - there's very much we
:don't know - and ignorance is dangerous.

: Biotech? You approve of GM cultivars?
: I am amazed.
: But yes, they could well help.

I merely mean "biological technology". Perhaps I should have
used the term "biological science" instead.

FWIW, I think GM cultivars will prove to be of great importance
and significance.

However, many of the same sorts of safety issues surrounding
pesticides will apply there - a healthy level of paranoia
may be beneficial there also.

It keeps (so far) GM out of the EU marketplace.
Except for imports of course.

Some of the things I've grown (or am growing) this year:

Basil, Broccoli, Cabbage (black), Cabbage (red), Celery,
Chervil, Chickory, Chickpea, Chop Suey, Collard, Coriander,
Corn salad, Cress (curly), Cress (land), Cress (water),
Fennel, Flax, Kale (red russian), Lettuce, Mibuna, Mizuna,
Mustard (red), Mustard (yellow), Mustard (spinach), Pak
Choi, Spinach (perpetual), Radish, Rape, Rape (salad),
Rocket (salad), Rocket (wild), Sesame, Sunflower, Texel,
Turnip, Alfalfa, Aduki, Clover (red), Fenugreek, Lentils
(puy), Mung, Pea, Soya, Amaranth, Buckwheat, Corn, Kamut,
Quinoa, Rye, Spelt, Wheat, Raspberries, Taeberries,
Loganberries, Wolfberries, Black Currants, Gooseberries,
Hazel nuts, Apricots, broad beans, peas, onions, garlic,
purple sprouting broccoli, swiss chard.

How big is your veg plot?
How big is your greenhouse?

: and what percentage of your total food intake (calories) do home
: grown crops amount to?

Most of my calorie intake comes from fruit, nuts, oils and seeds.
I hardly grow any of them. The fruit I grow are almost all berries.

Given the list above, it should be much more than that unless you are
growing only a few plants of each. In which case I would suggest you are
playing at growing your own food. Two frames each of runner and climbing
french would (even for a veggie) oversupply food for several months.
Heck four of us can't begin to keep up. Courgettes (four plants) we
throw out or give away probably 70+% and swiss chard similarly. I only
have a tiny untended veg plot, too.

I estimate I currently grow about 10% of my calories for the year -
if that.

Then you either have a very small plot, aren't trying or aren't growing
the right things.

::: 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.

: Left in case you figure out an answer.

It's possible. I believe what I said on this point before was that
I thought in the long term such a strategy might produce beneficial
results - but that we didn't currently know enough to implement it
safely.

Pah!

As I mentioned, the supposed plant toxins have some beneficial side
effects. "Hormesis" - as it's sometimes called. Engineering or breeding
them out without proper understanding of their roles may prove
counter-productive.

The same may well be true of pesticides of course.
I'm sure that's never been tested for.

::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.
:
:We know a fair bit indirectly about plant toxins from the study of
:human nutrition.

: Actually we no sod all.

You like leaving out qualifications, don't you? ;-)

True none the less. Things can be nutritious and toxic.
Many animals eat toxic plants for the nutrition, else you get to die of
hunger first and so just have to tolerate the effects of the toxin.

:It may not have been medicine's most explored area - but
:to say we know "virtually NIL" on the subject seems like
:an overstatement to me.

: Give me some examples of LD50, noel and content of a few food plant
: toxins then.

Some other day, perhaps - since doing so would prove nothing.

It proves we have NO DATA on most (if not all) food plant toxins.
So we have no idea how toxic they really are, apart from the odd cases
of illness and death.

::: 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).
:
:You're mistaken there...

: Hardly, I am a farmer.

Think for a moment about what you're saying, then.

Machines do NOT let me grow more/ac.
They let me grow more per MAN.

::and things like a global market in seeds and produce.
:
:: That's always been there (not that it has any relevance to your
:: submission).
:
:...and there.

: You are still wrong. Like most farmers I know a lot about seed
: development and production.

Perhaps read your own words again, then. You are apparently
claiming that a global market in seeds and produce existed before
the birth of the universe.

Don't be a prat all your life.
Remember seeds were brought back in the first ships that went to the new
world, and in the old world many (most, all?) crop plants had spread
from their original source to the furthest edges in antiquity.

::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.
:
:Rather obviously, I'm talking about growing a greater proportion of
:things "under glass" - or in controlled environments.

: To feed the world?

Yes.

: speechless at the stunning level of ignorance

Don't underestimate technological progress.

I don't, I do understand economics.
Just work out the energy cost of covering the UK arable area under
glass. Go on, have a go.

:You may have noticed that there's been something of a trend in that
:direction over the last hundred years.

: Not in the UK, it's almost zero now other than for cut flowers.

...and watercress, and tomatoes - and an increasing number of other
things.

Watercress is all grown outside hereabouts.
Tomatoes are mostly, if not nowadays entirely, grown outside the UK.

: Far too expensive.

Expense is one of the main problems - but prices are falling.

Eh? Industrial glasshouse costs are rising.

I expect
them to continue to do so.

they will continue to rise, that's for sure.

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