BAC writes
In which case we probably don't regard the food source as toxic at all. Or
not - in which case the toxins remain toxic to humans, and we presumably
have learned to avoid ingestion, or to process the food so as to reduce the
toxicity to levels we consider acceptable. Similar to how we might deal with
foods we know to have been treated with 'artificial' toxins, really.

So far as I am aware allowed pesticide levels in treated produce are not
related to subsequent treatment by the purchaser (which may, or may not,
reduce levels further).

Allowed levels are set by no adverse effect levels found in animal
studies after multi-generational trials, divided by 10 or 100. Note that
the amount of produce that exceeds the ADI when tested is minute, and
the 'traces' found and usually quoted are more a symptom of the
hypersensitivity of modern testing than anything else, usually way below
the ADI.

Further the ADI is in essence set by the maximum amount of that produce
a consumer could theoretically eat. There are stories about excessive
proposed intakes such as the one where the proposed possible carrot
intake was close to 100% of diet (they might be carrot loving
veggies...), and was well over the toxic intake for the carrots
themselves. In this situation you wouldn't be harmed by the pesticide,
but would be killed by the carrots.

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

writes

Er, surely a toxin is only a toxin if our digestion can't cope with it
and it poisons us. Anything we can successfully digest and either
metabolise or excrete is, almost by definition, not a toxin.

How very wrong can some people be?

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

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Tim Tyler writes

Methyl bromide is used to control insects, nematodes,
weeds, and pathogens. It seems relevant of a thread with
"The dangers of weed killers" in its title.

About as relevant as the use of arsenic to cure syphilis.

In any case you also haven't read the subject box.

Blimey! I agree with you Oz. Twice in one week :-)

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Tumbleweed
wrote:
It makes reasonable sense:

Our digestive tract has evolved to cope with natural toxins.

no, our digestive tracts have evolved to cope with SOME natural toxins.
Also the plants and their toxins are still evolving

Er, surely a toxin is only a toxin if our digestion can't cope with it
and it poisons us. Anything we can successfully digest and either
metabolise or excrete is, almost by definition, not a toxin.

in which case Glyphosphate, the start of this thread, is not a toxin.

I think we have to be careful just how we bandy such words about. If I
remember correctly, asprin is poison for cats, if so, then Asprin is a
toxin.
Trouble is we are all sloppy and casual and neglect to put in the full
details. Perhaps if we say plants produce an array of substances, many of
them toxic in varying degrees to many species.
But the obvious thing to do is eat more meat. Once it's been killed most of
your problems with regard to its defence mechanisms are over :-))

Jim Webster


--
Chris Green )

"BAC" wrote in message ...
"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Tumbleweed
wrote:

: You miss the point, 'organic' plants are also full of insecticides and
: fungicides, naturally evolved to be super efficient at such stuff as
: mimicking animal hormones, (see the recent news on soy milk, killing
insects
: etc.
: When a random sample of around 50 of these chemicals was tested to the
same
: standards as man-made pesticides, 50% of them were found to be toxic, in
: fact *much more* toxic than would be allowed for man-made chemicals.
Thus
: the man made pesticides about which you complain are less toxic than
half
: these naturally ocurring chemicals. You complain about 'junk' when you
refer
: to man-made chemicals that have undergone rigorous testing, yet you eat
: plants full of hundreds of untested, probably more dangerous chemicals,
with
: no worries.

It makes reasonable sense:

Our digestive tract has evolved to cope with natural toxins.

In which case we probably don't regard the food source as toxic at all. Or
not - in which case the toxins remain toxic to humans, and we presumably
have learned to avoid ingestion, or to process the food so as to reduce the
toxicity to levels we consider acceptable. Similar to how we might deal with
foods we know to have been treated with 'artificial' toxins, really.

I am looking for a weed killer that will not be harmful to my dog

Old Codger writes

Blimey! I agree with you Oz. Twice in one week :-)

PLEASE stop agreeing with me.

It damages my street cred.

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

diane writes

I am looking for a weed killer that will not be harmful to my dog

Why do you want to feed weedkillers to your dog?

If your are concerned about safety otherwise, the read the label, and
follow the instructions on the can.

Even if it doesn't say so, it may give you peace of mind to prevent
access to the sprayed area for 24hrs (unless the label demands longer).


--
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:
writes

Er, surely a toxin is only a toxin if our digestion can't cope with it
and it poisons us. Anything we can successfully digest and either
metabolise or excrete is, almost by definition, not a toxin.

How very wrong can some people be?

.... I don't know, care to explain?

--
Chris Green )

In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...

: Specific enzymes exist to detoxify plant toxins that were naturally in
: our diet - and they have worked well enough to get us this far.

: No they haven't. [...]

? Clearly we got here. Pesticides and herbicides can hardly take
responsibility for that - since they are a recent phenomenon.

: The same is not true of man-made insecticides, pesticides and fungicides.

: Of course not - they've not evolved to harm anything that eats them, indeed
: they've been designed not to.

More to the point, they've been designed to make the chemical corps money.

To that end, they are invisible to consumers - and likely do the minimum
necessary to pass regulator's safety standards.

: All in all it's better to eat meat - animals generally defend themselves by
: running away rather than producing toxins, so all you need is a means of
: catching them.

Not logical. You can't conclude it's better to eat meat because it can
run away.

Meat is higher up the food chain for one thing - and thus will concentrate
environmental toxins.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

In uk.rec.gardening BAC wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
: In uk.rec.gardening Tumbleweed

: It makes reasonable sense:
:
: Our digestive tract has evolved to cope with natural toxins.

: In which case we probably don't regard the food source as toxic at all. Or
: not - in which case the toxins remain toxic to humans, and we presumably
: have learned to avoid ingestion, or to process the food so as to reduce the
: toxicity to levels we consider acceptable. Similar to how we might deal with
: foods we know to have been treated with 'artificial' toxins, really.

Our taste buds do their best to warn us about many plant toxins.

The plants are happy to cooperate in making themselves taste pungent.

By contrast, the artificial toxins have been designed to be tasteless and
invisible to consumers.

Strawberries are one of the most pesticide-infected types of produce.
They don't have natural toxins in. They are "designed" to be eaten by
mammals like us. The fungicides sprayed on strawberries are toxic to
animals like us. http://www.pesticideinfo.org/PCW/DS.jsp?sk='1016'
lists the crap sprayed on strawberries. There can be no contest here.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening BAC wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message
...
: In uk.rec.gardening Tumbleweed

: It makes reasonable sense:
:
: Our digestive tract has evolved to cope with natural toxins.

: In which case we probably don't regard the food source as toxic at all.
Or
: not - in which case the toxins remain toxic to humans, and we
presumably
: have learned to avoid ingestion, or to process the food so as to reduce
the
: toxicity to levels we consider acceptable. Similar to how we might deal
with
: foods we know to have been treated with 'artificial' toxins, really.

Our taste buds do their best to warn us about many plant toxins.


I've never tried raw soya but I reckon it's not good to eat. A lot of what
we eat today needs some processing, to grow it in large quanties requires
modern technologies. What alternative do you propose - starving people?

The plants are happy to cooperate in making themselves taste pungent.

By contrast, the artificial toxins have been designed to be tasteless and
invisible to consumers.


And safe!

Strawberries are one of the most pesticide-infected types of produce.
They don't have natural toxins in. They are "designed" to be eaten by
mammals like us. The fungicides sprayed on strawberries are toxic to
animals like us. http://www.pesticideinfo.org/PCW/DS.jsp?sk='1016'
lists the crap sprayed on strawberries. There can be no contest here.

Strawberries aren't meat. I rest my case. Try bacon.

Michael Saunby

Tim Tyler writes
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:

: The same is not true of man-made insecticides, pesticides and fungicides.

: Of course not - they've not evolved to harm anything that eats them, indeed
: they've been designed not to.

More to the point, they've been designed to make the chemical corps money.

So what do you think they should do, produce them as a public service?

Don't be a prat.

To that end, they are invisible to consumers - and likely do the minimum
necessary to pass regulator's safety standards.

Since the regulator's standards (UK, certainly) are horribly tough,
that's true of some pesticides. Remember the typical cost to do the work
required by the regulator costs 50M UKP. That is, it's very very
thorough indeed.

Hardly surprising, the manufacturer and regulators get to eat the
produce they approve.

: All in all it's better to eat meat - animals generally defend themselves by
: running away rather than producing toxins, so all you need is a means of
: catching them.

Not logical. You can't conclude it's better to eat meat because it can
run away.

I see you have missed the point completely.

Meat is higher up the food chain for one thing - and thus will concentrate
environmental toxins.

But not pesticides, because they are biodegradeable - a requirement.

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

writes
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
writes

Er, surely a toxin is only a toxin if our digestion can't cope with it
and it poisons us. Anything we can successfully digest and either
metabolise or excrete is, almost by definition, not a toxin.

How very wrong can some people be?

... I don't know, care to explain?

1) Many toxins are highly biodegradeable. Cyanide, for example is broken
down in a few tens of seconds. Pity you get to die first.

2) Many toxins get broken down by the gut, you just have to worry about
the bit that you get to absorb before it's broken down.

3) Many toxins get excreted, often damaging the kidneys and causing
kidney failure (some mushroom toxins being the best known).

In fact I can't, offhand, think of any toxins apart from heavy metals
(which are excreted, but slowly) that don't fall into one, some or all
of the groups above. A moment's thought, and you would have realised the
same.

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

On Wed, 21 May 2003 17:05:11 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Tim Tyler writes
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:

: The same is not true of man-made insecticides, pesticides and fungicides.

: Of course not - they've not evolved to harm anything that eats them, indeed
: they've been designed not to.

More to the point, they've been designed to make the chemical corps money.

So what do you think they should do, produce them as a public service?

Don't be a prat.

Oh dear, the last refuge of a beaten man I'm afraid.

One should embrace a good solid argument as an education, especially
when beaten by it!
--








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

I understand.

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

Tim Tyler writes

Our taste buds do their best to warn us about many plant toxins.

Unfortunately not always, with fatal results.
Try the strychnine tree for example.

The plants are happy to cooperate in making themselves taste pungent.

Whether toxic or not, this can be a useful strategy, sometimes.

By contrast, the artificial toxins have been designed to be tasteless and
invisible to consumers.

One thing I am certain about, and that is that smell and taste features
absolutely nowhere in anyone's selection procedure for pesticides. The
infinitesimal residues (if any) left by the time you eat it are only
detectable (if at all) by hugely sophisticated analytical equipment.

Just to give you some idea I have visited a site where they could test
at these levels. They had three areas, with separate doors to the
outside and staff from each area were not allowed to touch each other
until their shift had finished. This was because if one of the 'low
level detection' area walked through the 'high level' area (where the
test applications were made) then they would totally trash the analysis
just from particles they picked up walking through.

As any farmer would tell you, many sprays smell 'rather strongly'.

So you are quite incorrect.

Strawberries are one of the most pesticide-infected types of produce.
They don't have natural toxins in.

I very much doubt that. When I grew them nothing much but the odd slug
ate them, which is always a giveaway.

They are "designed" to be eaten by
mammals like us.

The fruits maybe. That doesn't mean they aren't toxic. I expect there is
a fair bit of oxalic acid in them just the same.

The fungicides sprayed on strawberries are toxic to
animals like us.

Fungicides are toxic to fungi.
That's why they are called fungicides.

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/PCW/DS.jsp?sk='1016'
lists the crap sprayed on strawberries. There can be no contest here.

Maybe, you haven't quoted any of them.

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