question about organic fruits and veggies
Skye
I've been eating organic produce for a few years now because I had read
that not only is it healthier and safer because you're not ingesting
pesticides, but it's healthier because it's suppose to have larger
amounts of vitamins and minerals. The health and safety issue has now
become a huge factor to me because I am pregnant and I eat at least six
servings of fruits/veggies per day, and I want my growing little one to
as healthy as possible.
Never did I question the safety and health factors of organic fruits
until last night, when on either ABC or NBC, they had a story on about
organic produce that basically stated that it's all a big scam. This
really pissed me off because I felt like the whole show was propaganda
in favor of the pesticide growers. The woman they had on, who
represented organic produce, was such an empty brained bimbo and didn't
even *try* to stand up for organic growers and how much better their
food is. The show went on and on and basically concluded that organic
produce has *no more* nutritional value than non organic. Furthermore,
they pointed out that organic 'pre washed' salad mixes have greater
quantities of bacteria in them than the non organic 'pre washed.' Well,
I don't know who would buy any produce and eat it w/out washing it
themselves first. . .but, anyway my point to this whole post is what is
the truth here? Whom am I suppose to believe? Common Sense dictates
that organic is the safest, but I know I should consider 'scientific
data,' so I figured this is as good a place as any to hear what you've
all read in books and so forth. Thanks for any info you can provide.
Skye
DrVer...@webtv.net
" The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease" -Thomas Edison (1847-1931)
Michael Sherman
Skye wrote:
> I've been eating organic produce for a few years now because I had read
> that not only is it healthier and safer because you're not ingesting
> pesticides, but it's healthier because it's suppose to have larger
> amounts of vitamins and minerals.
I have never seen any evidence for either of these propositions.
There is no pesticide residue to be found on either organic or
non-organic produce in supermarkets, at least here in Silicon
Valley. I have never seen any science indicating that organic produce
is more or less nutritious either. (I have noticed that the
packages of frozen organic strawberries indicate substantially
lower values of vitamin C on their labels than do the frozen
non-organic ones; I'm not sure what that means.)
Organic produce does have a greater risk of bacterial contamination
due to the manure with which it is fertilized -- be sure to wash
carefully (you should do that with any kind of produce). The danger
from bacteria is FAR greater to a child than the imaginary danger
of non-detectable pesticides.
The only incontrovertible benefit to organics of which I am convinced
is that the profit margins are higher for producers, due to access to the
sucker market of people who will pay anything for politically correct
food!
In my opinion you (and many others) have been duped, probably by
mostly well-meaning people, and are wasting your hard-earned money
on organic produce.
sherm
Quentin Grady
On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 20:28:44 GMT, Skye
<noneofyou...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I've been eating organic produce for a few years now because I had read
>that not only is it healthier and safer because you're not ingesting
>pesticides, but it's healthier because it's suppose to have larger
>amounts of vitamins and minerals. The health and safety issue has now
>become a huge factor to me because I am pregnant and I eat at least six
>servings of fruits/veggies per day, and I want my growing little one to
>as healthy as possible.
Congratulations.
>Never did I question the safety and health factors of organic fruits
>until last night, when on either ABC or NBC, they had a story on about
>organic produce that basically stated that it's all a big scam. This
>really pissed me off because I felt like the whole show was propaganda
>in favor of the pesticide growers. The woman they had on, who
>represented organic produce, was such an empty brained bimbo and didn't
>even *try* to stand up for organic growers and how much better their
>food is.
G'day G'day Skye,
I come from a culture that calls a fart a fart. On the other hand
calling a women whose passion outran her knowledge a "bimbo" would
probably get me sacked. So please forgive me if my plainess isn't your
plainess. I do my best to speak American, Australian and three foreign
other languages.
News is only news if its controversial. Of course you already knew
that. Sprays are approved until they are disapproved. For many years
DDT was an approved spray in New Zealand. It was approved for use on
cauliflowers to control white butterfly. When I was fourteen which
is now almost fifty years ago I wrote an indignant letter to a local
newspaper. As a direct result of this letter, DDT was banned within
six months for use in New Zealand vegetable gardens. For many years I
lived with the guilt associated with this outcome. Guilt is a
terrible thing. I was smart enough to know many of the replacement
sprays were more toxic in the short term. I lived with that for nigh
on fifty years till it was realised that the mixture called DDT was
mixture of two chemical, one a synthetic estrogen, the other a
testosterone inhibiter. Blokes don't actually stops me on the street
to thank me for their high sperm count. Glad the don't. One just
never knows how ones action will influence the future.
OK back to the organic versus non-organic question. My advice is do
what ever makes you happy. Happiness makes a powerful hormone milieu
for that coming baby of yours. Do I buy only organic. Nah.
Perforce the chemical industry has had to tidy up their act. Sure I
prefer organic food. The stone Zentrofan flour is organic. Comes with
the territory. True I grow many of my own salad vegetables. My
reasoning for this seemingly relaxed attitude is simple. I'm better
off than average having a good proportion of organic food. I know
from discussions that the local growers who spray, spray much less now
than the used to. They have insect traps and don't spray until the
count reaches a certain point. And the sprays they use are more
selective and less toxic to mammals.
The situation here gets better every year without me doing anything.
You have no idea how reassuring that is, unless you experience it
yourself.
> The show went on and on and basically concluded that organic
>produce has *no more* nutritional value than non organic. Furthermore,
>they pointed out that organic 'pre washed' salad mixes have greater
>quantities of bacteria in them than the non organic 'pre washed.' Well,
>I don't know who would buy any produce and eat it w/out washing it
>themselves first. . .but, anyway my point to this whole post is what is
>the truth here? Whom am I suppose to believe?
Now, your own common sense is a good starting point. You have the
intelligence to see though the hype that makes news sensational and
can put all that aside. So, your baby has one great big plus going
for it right there.
Thousand upon thousands of people have done worrying about making the
world a safer place. That was their role. When you get down to it the
details are highly unlikely to be important to you and your baby. You
presumably live in a highly protected society. Think about it. Even
that "bimbo" is protected.
I think it must be the grandfatherenes but what I need to say most is,
"Enjoy the experience"
> Common Sense dictates
>that organic is the safest, but I know I should consider 'scientific
>data,' so I figured this is as good a place as any to hear what you've
>all read in books and so forth. Thanks for any info you can provide.
>
>Skye
Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."
Doug and Sharon Farrar
organic was best as well. I just thought you might be interested in a
capsule form of organic fruits and vegetables to supplement what you are
already doing. Its called Juice Plus and its 17 fruits and vegetables juiced
and dried where they still have all the enzymes and phytonutrients of raw
fruits and vegetables. Plus, it has been shown through research to enter the
bloodstream to create more antioxidant levels in your body to fight off
disease and cancer. I am currently taking Juice Plus and I am 5 months
pregnant. There is nothing else added. Its great. I know that this baby is
going to be very healthy because there has been no question that I have
received the best nutrition by getting all my fruits and vegetables every
day. If you want more information from me or a website - see below
http://www.juiceplus.com/users/SF91511/asp
or email me -
Sharon Farrar
"Skye" <noneofyou...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:<389C85E0...@somewhere.com>...
> Hi,
>
> I've been eating organic produce for a few years now because I had read
> that not only is it healthier and safer because you're not ingesting
> pesticides, but it's healthier because it's suppose to have larger
> amounts of vitamins and minerals. The health and safety issue has now
> become a huge factor to me because I am pregnant and I eat at least six
> servings of fruits/veggies per day, and I want my growing little one to
> as healthy as possible.
>
> Never did I question the safety and health factors of organic fruits
> until last night, when on either ABC or NBC, they had a story on about
> organic produce that basically stated that it's all a big scam. This
> really pissed me off because I felt like the whole show was propaganda
> in favor of the pesticide growers. The woman they had on, who
> represented organic produce, was such an empty brained bimbo and didn't
> even *try* to stand up for organic growers and how much better their
> food is. The show went on and on and basically concluded that organic
> produce has *no more* nutritional value than non organic. Furthermore,
> they pointed out that organic 'pre washed' salad mixes have greater
> quantities of bacteria in them than the non organic 'pre washed.' Well,
> I don't know who would buy any produce and eat it w/out washing it
> themselves first. . .but, anyway my point to this whole post is what is
> the truth here? Whom am I suppose to believe? Common Sense dictates
> that organic is the safest, but I know I should consider 'scientific
> data,' so I figured this is as good a place as any to hear what you've
> all read in books and so forth. Thanks for any info you can provide.
>
> Skye
>
"Skye" <noneofyou...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:389C85E0...@somewhere.com...
> Hi,
>
> I've been eating organic produce for a few years now because I had read
> that not only is it healthier and safer because you're not ingesting
> pesticides, but it's healthier because it's suppose to have larger
> amounts of vitamins and minerals. The health and safety issue has now
> become a huge factor to me because I am pregnant and I eat at least six
> servings of fruits/veggies per day, and I want my growing little one to
> as healthy as possible.
>
> Never did I question the safety and health factors of organic fruits
> until last night, when on either ABC or NBC, they had a story on about
> organic produce that basically stated that it's all a big scam. This
> really pissed me off because I felt like the whole show was propaganda
> in favor of the pesticide growers. The woman they had on, who
> represented organic produce, was such an empty brained bimbo and didn't
> even *try* to stand up for organic growers and how much better their
> food is. The show went on and on and basically concluded that organic
> produce has *no more* nutritional value than non organic. Furthermore,
> they pointed out that organic 'pre washed' salad mixes have greater
> quantities of bacteria in them than the non organic 'pre washed.' Well,
> I don't know who would buy any produce and eat it w/out washing it
> themselves first. . .but, anyway my point to this whole post is what is
> the truth here? Whom am I suppose to believe? Common Sense dictates
Paul Rogers
<DrVer...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:22650-38...@storefull-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net...A root vegetable will not take on a toxin from the soil... it draws
exactly what it needs for growth... Poor soil will give you a smaller
vegetable... All root vegetation is not edible... Please go to:
http://aquarianctr.org/altmed - go to nutrition.
Paul Rogers
Buying someone elses organic veges is a bit like using someone
elses comb -- you don't quite know where it's been!
Organic standards organisations keep an eye on organic produce
with certification standards to some extent. The manure/bacteria
problem is the same as if you grew your own.. Just wash them
well -- no problem -- and a good practice under any
circumstances.
As for pesticide residues on vegetables, this has improved in
the last few decades, but consider this: many of the 400 or so
pesticides (AI) approved for food crops do not have reliable and
well implemented chemical analytical methods in most countries.
Do not believe the propaganda about low residues put out by
regulatory authorities to soothe public concern -- it is often
selective measuring. Residues can still be a problem -- not so
much in the short term (except for aldicarb!) -- but in the
longer term where we just do not know. And children and old/sick
may by particulary at risk.
Now as far as organic being more nutritious than non-organic, I
sit on the fence on this one. It is true that few studies have
shown that organic veges have more nutrients than non-organic.
There is one study, which is always quoted, showing higher
amounts in organic (but I do not have the reference).
Essentially, vegetables and fruits will take up what is in the
soil, particularly for minerals.
Measuring such a things is also complicated by the amount of
water in the product. For example, a juicy carrot, all else being
equal, will measure a lower percentage of vitamins/minerals than
a less juicy (perhaps organic) carrot on a 'wet' weight basis. In
any case, the differential may not be all that consequential in
dietary terms.
Don't worry too much about the details. 'Organic' is good
essentially, and the practice also helps wildlife and environment
and the farm workers who do not have to spray toxic chemicals.
Be aware that the conventional agribusiness industry has 'geared
up' to fight what they see is the increasing popularity of
organic growing and marketing. Programs such as you saw often are
initiated by industry interests with some dumb journalist who
does not know any different. A standard technique is to interview
someone from the organic/environment side that they know will
probably not be all that competent, and ignore more professional
environmentalists. This is not paranoia, just the way it works.
Take care, grow organic!
Paul Rogers
Tracy Aquilla
>
[snip]
> Do not believe the propaganda about low residues put out by
> regulatory authorities to soothe public concern -- it is often
> selective measuring.
What propaganda and to which regulatory authorities do you refer?
The numerous publications in scientific journals are neither propaganda
nor by regulatory authorities. Rather, these publications comprise
actual data from scientific researchers. Note also that while the US
National Academy of Sciences has no regulatory authority and is not a
government agency, rather it is composed of some of the most highly
regarded scientists in the USA and its positions are supported by
peer-reviewed publications.
> Residues can still be a problem -- not so
> much in the short term (except for aldicarb!) -- but in the
> longer term where we just do not know. And children and old/sick
> may by particulary at risk.
Well where is the evidence of this?
[snip]
> Measuring such a things is also complicated by the amount of
> water in the product. For example, a juicy carrot, all else being
> equal, will measure a lower percentage of vitamins/minerals than
> a less juicy (perhaps organic) carrot on a 'wet' weight basis. In
> any case, the differential may not be all that consequential in
> dietary terms.
Maybe that is why nutrient levels are generally compared on a dry weight
basis?
> Be aware that the conventional agribusiness industry has 'geared
> up' to fight what they see is the increasing popularity of
> organic growing and marketing.
Actually, it appears they prefer the "if you can't beat' em, join 'em"
approach. For example, you are aware that Novartis is a major producer
of Bt pesticides?
> Programs such as you saw often are
> initiated by industry interests with some dumb journalist who
> does not know any different.
Have you any evidence for this, or is it just speculation?
> A standard technique is to interview
> someone from the organic/environment side that they know will
> probably not be all that competent, and ignore more professional
> environmentalists.
Can you please name a "professional environmentalist" who is competent
in matters of agricultural science and generally supports the statements
you posted?
Tracy
Paul Rogers
news:38A06C0A...@bpmlegal.com...
> Paul Rogers wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > Do not believe the propaganda about low residues put out by
> > regulatory authorities to soothe public concern -- it is
often
> > selective measuring.
>
> What propaganda and to which regulatory authorities do you
refer?
Note that this is an international forum, not a US forum. I refer
to Market Basket Surveys (residue surveys) in Australia in the
1990s under the auspices of the National Food Authority. The last
survey I investigated was accompanied by press releases assuring
the public that the food supply was in good shape and that
pesticide residues were not a problem. While I accept that
residues are declining in developed countries with good
regulatory protocols, the rhetoric does not match the science.
For example, out of several hundred pesticides registered for
food use in Australia, only about 40 or so were adequately
investigated in the 1992 survey. Carbamate insecticides including
aldicarb, for which there have been recent cases of food
poisoning, and other toxicologically important carbamates
including benomyl were not measured. Reporting of pesticides
used 'post harvest' where the potential for residues is high, was
also deficient. I spoke to a government chemist at the time who
confirmed that reliable analytical methods for many pesticides
were either too unreliable or too expensive to perform.
The US residue monitoring system may indeed be better, and
Australia is surely improving its methods, but in some countries
in Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe, the protocols are
likely to be worse.
My point was that the rhetoric of relative safety of pesticide
residues is not supported by the science. My guess is that food
supplies in the US and Australia are probably of low risk from
pesticide residues, but I would not discourage anyone from
wanting to eat organic food, nor would I suggest that the science
proves that this (low risk) is so. In countries where
organochlorines (lindane, DDT, heptachlor etc) are still in use,
bioaccumulation in human tissue adds an additional potential risk
factor.
> The numerous publications in scientific journals are neither
propaganda
> nor by regulatory authorities. Rather, these publications
comprise
> actual data from scientific researchers. Note also that while
the US
> National Academy of Sciences has no regulatory authority and is
not a
> government agency, rather it is composed of some of the most
highly
> regarded scientists in the USA and its positions are supported
by
> peer-reviewed publications.
To what do you refer? I note that you are fond of quoting the
National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council -- often
without reference to particular papers. Perhaps you misrepresent
their scholarly investigation and publication on these matters.
The two seminal papers from the NRC in the nineties, in my
opinion, are:
1. Pesticides in the Diets of Children, 1993
2. Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet: A
Comparison of Naturally Occurring and Synthetic Substances, 1996
The press release from the 1993 report included the following :
"The committee found that researchers have collected few data
useful for estimating pesticide exposures of infants and
children. But the report concludes that there is "a potential
concern" that some children may, on the basis of the limited data
available, be ingesting unsafe amounts of pesticides."
Find the full press release, which is a good summary of the
report, at:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/
Read the full text at:
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/2126.html
Two viewpoints have been presented in these papers. Because the
work from Ames and Gold was published more recently, this does
not mean that it negates the conclusions of the 1993 work. This
is an investigation in progress that each of these documents (and
committees) contributes to. I respect the work of Ames and Gold
on carcinogen risk assessment and natural toxins, but this is not
the final word and it is wrong and deceitful of you to suggest
that it is.
The data are not 'in' on this issue -- which was reflected in my
original statement that we do not yet know the effects of long
term exposure to residues of synthetic substances, some of which
are encountered in food, but also in environmental exposures.
Bear in mind that there may be delayed toxic end points other
than cancer -- immune, endocrinological, neurological that could
be initiated in early childhood or in the womb. In general,
animal testing for these end points is not satisfactory.
>
> > Residues can still be a problem -- not so
> > much in the short term (except for aldicarb!) -- but in the
> > longer term where we just do not know. And children and
old/sick
> > may by particulary at risk.
>
> Well where is the evidence of this?
My position is that we do not yet know, but there is enough
accumulated science to suspect that, at certain residues (doses),
there could be problems after long exposures or 'hot spot'
exposures.
You need to present me with evidence that we DO know (that there
are no long-term problems with residues), do you not? And this
being an international forum, can you say that in all countries,
residues of any magnitude will not present delayed (long-term)
toxicity? You seem to be saying so.
> [snip]
> > Measuring such a things is also complicated by the amount of
> > water in the product. For example, a juicy carrot, all else
being
> > equal, will measure a lower percentage of vitamins/minerals
than
> > a less juicy (perhaps organic) carrot on a 'wet' weight
basis. In
> > any case, the differential may not be all that consequential
in
> > dietary terms.
>
> Maybe that is why nutrient levels are generally compared on a
dry weight
> basis?
Hmmm, yes, that's the point isn't it? With dry weight, I suspect
that you would get a reasonable measure of mineral content, but
not a very useful measure of vitamins, particulary water soluble
vitamins. I would welcome a correction though.
>
> > Be aware that the conventional agribusiness industry has
'geared
> > up' to fight what they see is the increasing popularity of
> > organic growing and marketing.
>
> Actually, it appears they prefer the "if you can't beat' em,
join 'em"
> approach. For example, you are aware that Novartis is a major
producer
> of Bt pesticides?
How is this relevent? I am aware of many biopesticides produced
by agribusiness companies. Of course they will produce
biopesticides if there is profit in it. Hope they do. However, it
would seem to me that profits from chemical pesticides (which far
outweigh biopesticides currently) will decline if organic and IPM
systems proliferate.
> > Programs such as you saw often are
> > initiated by industry interests with some dumb journalist who
> > does not know any different.
>
> Have you any evidence for this, or is it just speculation?
That there are dumb journalists? Yes I've been interviewed by
some ;-)
>
> > A standard technique is to interview
> > someone from the organic/environment side that they know will
> > probably not be all that competent, and ignore more
professional
> > environmentalists.
>
> Can you please name a "professional environmentalist" who is
competent
> in matters of agricultural science and generally supports the
statements
> you posted?
Now why would I emabrass someone by naming them here? And why do
you assume that this discussion requires 'competence in
agricultural science'? In 25 years I have met few ag scientists
with competence in pesticide toxicology, nor economic
entomologists either. But thats not to say that they do not
exist.
Sustainable agriculture should be an interdisciplinary and
multidisciplinary endeavour. Heaven help us if it gets left to
the agricultural scientists.
Cheers
Paul Rogers
John H. Gohde
healthy pesticide FREE product. Why don't you address the issue of this
THREAD rather than spouting off on pesticide paranoia?
"Paul Rogers" <con...@imagic.com.au> wrote in message
news:JBbo4.21745$3b6....@ozemail.com.au...
Tracy Aquilla
> Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
> news:38A06C0A...@bpmlegal.com...
> > Paul Rogers wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> > > Do not believe the propaganda about low residues put out by
> > > regulatory authorities to soothe public concern -- it is
> > > often selective measuring.
> >
> > What propaganda and to which regulatory authorities do you
> refer?
>
> Note that this is an international forum, not a US forum.
Having participated for several years now, I am well aware of that fact.
That is why I asked to which propaganda and which regulatory authorities
you refer. Your blanket generalization was not particularly informative,
especially in the context of an "international forum".
> I refer
> to Market Basket Surveys (residue surveys) in Australia in the
> 1990s under the auspices of the National Food Authority.
Then it would have been more accurate to say so, instead of using the
plural "authorities". You appear to have made your conclusion based on
surveys done in a single country.
> The last
> survey I investigated was accompanied by press releases assuring
> the public that the food supply was in good shape and that
> pesticide residues were not a problem.
Apparently the survey was based on data collected in Australia and the
press releases directed to consumers in Australia. What factual basis
have you to disbelieve any of the conclusions therein?
> While I accept that
> residues are declining in developed countries with good
> regulatory protocols, the rhetoric does not match the science.
>
> For example, out of several hundred pesticides registered for
> food use in Australia, only about 40 or so were adequately
> investigated in the 1992 survey.
I have not seen that particular survey, however, such market basket
surveys generally test for the compounds that are seen as being of most
concern in the foods included in the survey. Was this one somehow
different?
> Carbamate insecticides including
> aldicarb, for which there have been recent cases of food
> poisoning,
When and where? Are you referring to deliberate poisonings, illegal
uses, or what?
> and other toxicologically important carbamates
> including benomyl were not measured.
Which food products were included in the survey that are routinely
treated with these pesticides?
> Reporting of pesticides
> used 'post harvest' where the potential for residues is high, was
> also deficient.
Which food products were included in the survey that are routinely
treated 'post harvest' and with which particular pesticides that were
not included in the analysis? Unless you are simply speculating, you
should be able to provide a factual basis to support your assertions.
> I spoke to a government chemist at the time who
> confirmed that reliable analytical methods for many pesticides
> were either too unreliable or too expensive to perform.
Would you prefer they used unreliable methods? Would you be happier if
large agchem companies provided the funds or did the tests that are "too
expensive" or would you then suspect the results to be biased?
> The US residue monitoring system may indeed be better, and
> Australia is surely improving its methods, but in some countries
> in Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe, the protocols are
> likely to be worse.
Where is your evidence that that pesticide residues in these areas
present a significant health risk?
> My point was that the rhetoric of relative safety of pesticide
> residues is not supported by the science.
You have yet to provide any evidence that refutes the conclusions of the
survey to which you refer.
> My guess is that food
> supplies in the US and Australia are probably of low risk from
> pesticide residues,
Good guess.
> but I would not discourage anyone from
> wanting to eat organic food,
Neither would I. I have been using organic methods since 1982 and I see
no reason to discourage anyone from wanting to eat organic food
(currently, I do not sell produce, organic or otherwise, so I do not
have any economic bias either way).
> nor would I suggest that the science
> proves that this (low risk) is so.
Generally the scientific method cannot prove anything - it can only be
used to disprove something. However, the available data indicate that
natural pesticides are present in food at concentrations thousands of
times higher than the residues of synthetic pesticides, thus the
greatest risk appears to be from natural pesticides, not residues of
synthetic pesticides.
> In countries where
> organochlorines (lindane, DDT, heptachlor etc) are still in use,
> bioaccumulation in human tissue adds an additional potential risk
> factor.
Even so, any associated human health risk is quite low. Are you not
aware that millions of people were literally doused with DDT during the
second world war, with no known toxic effects resulting therefrom?
> > The numerous publications in scientific journals are neither
> propaganda
> > nor by regulatory authorities. Rather, these publications
> comprise
> > actual data from scientific researchers. Note also that while
> the US
> > National Academy of Sciences has no regulatory authority and is
> not a
> > government agency, rather it is composed of some of the most
> highly
> > regarded scientists in the USA and its positions are supported
> by
> > peer-reviewed publications.
>
> To what do you refer?
You said the science does not support a conclusion that the risks of
pesticide residues is low, so of course, I took that to imply that you
were actually familiar with the science. But alas, perhaps I was wrong.
For a short list of relevant publications, see the following:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/mutagen//ames.senate_testimony.html
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/mutagen//ames.summary.html
> I note that you are fond of quoting the
> National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council -- often
> without reference to particular papers. Perhaps you misrepresent
> their scholarly investigation and publication on these matters.
I generally provide references without being asked, and almost always
provide them when asked. Maybe you can read the papers in the above
lists and show how I have misrepresented the conclusions therein? Note
that the national Cancer Institute also agrees that pesticide residues
are not a significant health risk (although the NCI is part of a
government agency).
> The two seminal papers from the NRC in the nineties, in my
> opinion, are:
>
> 1. Pesticides in the Diets of Children, 1993
> 2. Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet: A
> Comparison of Naturally Occurring and Synthetic Substances, 1996
>
> The press release from the 1993 report included the following :
I note you referred to the Australian press release as "propaganda" one
should not believe. So is a press release "propaganda" and unbelievable
only when it does not support your position?
[snip]
> I respect the work of Ames and Gold
> on carcinogen risk assessment and natural toxins, but this is not
> the final word and it is wrong and deceitful of you to suggest
> that it is.
Who suggested it was "the final word"? The fact remains, the available
data indicate that natural pesticides are present in food at
concentrations thousands of times higher than residues of synthetic
pesticides, and the greatest risk appears to be from natural pesticides,
not residues of synthetic pesticides. The synthetic pesticides are a
proverbial "drop-in-the-bucket". It is not the final word, rather it is
simply all that can be supported with the data that are currently
available.
> The data are not 'in' on this issue -- which was reflected in my
> original statement that we do not yet know the effects of long
> term exposure to residues of synthetic substances,
The first step towards wisdom is to realize that one cannot "know"
anything. However, use of the scientific method allows one to make
certain logical conclusions based on evidence. Note that synthetic
pesticides have been in use for well over 50 years. They have been
assayed extensively for long-term effects (some uses have even been
discontinued based on such tests). Considering that natural pesticides
are consumed in far greater quantities, it is logical to conclude, as
did Ames et al., that synthetic pesticides do not present any
significant health risk. Thus, as Ames concluded in his Senate
testimony, society is not served by continuing to focus on the minuscule
health risk posed by synthetic pesticides, rather it would be better
served by further investigating the effects of natural pesticides, which
are far more abundant and appear to pose a health risk of significantly
greater magnitude.
> some of which
> are encountered in food, but also in environmental exposures.
> Bear in mind that there may be delayed toxic end points other
> than cancer -- immune, endocrinological, neurological that could
> be initiated in early childhood or in the womb.
See publications by Gribble et al. demonstrating the vast abundance of
natural endocrine disrupters. Synthetic compounds are minor in
comparison.
> > > Residues can still be a problem -- not so
> > > much in the short term (except for aldicarb!) -- but in the
> > > longer term where we just do not know. And children and
> old/sick
> > > may by particulary at risk.
> >
> > Well where is the evidence of this?
>
> My position is that we do not yet know,
So you admit then that there is really no evidence to support your
conclusion. Thank you.
> but there is enough
> accumulated science to suspect that, at certain residues (doses),
> there could be problems after long exposures or 'hot spot'
> exposures.
Maybe, maybe not. You have merely stated an hypothesis.
> You need to present me with evidence that we DO know (that there
> are no long-term problems with residues), do you not?
No. The scientific method cannot prove anything, and is particularly
unable to prove a negative. It is only possible to prove that there is a
risk (if in fact there is any) - it is not logically possible to prove
there is no risk.
> And this
> being an international forum, can you say that in all countries,
> residues of any magnitude will not present delayed (long-term)
> toxicity? You seem to be saying so.
The economy now being global in nature, particularly in regard to food,
makes your argument extremely weak. Whether one buys the food in the US
or elsewhere, it is generally obtained from various sources from around
the world. In any case, you have not shown that pesticides are used in
greater quantities in developing countries than in the US or that
residues are significantly higher than those in the US or other
developed nations.
> > [snip]
> > > Measuring such a things is also complicated by the amount of
> > > water in the product. For example, a juicy carrot, all else
> being
> > > equal, will measure a lower percentage of vitamins/minerals
> than
> > > a less juicy (perhaps organic) carrot on a 'wet' weight
> basis. In
> > > any case, the differential may not be all that consequential
> in
> > > dietary terms.
> >
> > Maybe that is why nutrient levels are generally compared on a
> dry weight
> > basis?
>
> Hmmm, yes, that's the point isn't it? With dry weight, I suspect
> that you would get a reasonable measure of mineral content, but
> not a very useful measure of vitamins, particulary water soluble
> vitamins.
Why not? Do the water soluble vitamins somehow disappear when the water
content of a food is evaporated before dry matter analysis?
> > > Be aware that the conventional agribusiness industry has
> 'geared
> > > up' to fight what they see is the increasing popularity of
> > > organic growing and marketing.
> >
> > Actually, it appears they prefer the "if you can't beat' em,
> join 'em"
> > approach. For example, you are aware that Novartis is a major
> producer
> > of Bt pesticides?
>
> How is this relevent?
Well, you claimed "the conventional agribusiness industry has 'geared
up' to fight what they see is the increasing popularity of organic
growing and marketing." As far as I can tell, they seem to be joining
the organic industry, rather than fighting it, as exemplified by the
fact that they produce numerous products used by organic growers,
including organic pesticides and plant growth supplements.
> I am aware of many biopesticides produced
> by agribusiness companies. Of course they will produce
> biopesticides if there is profit in it. Hope they do. However, it
> would seem to me that profits from chemical pesticides (which far
> outweigh biopesticides currently) will decline if organic and IPM
> systems proliferate.
How is that relevant? Is this supposed to be evidence that the
conventional agribusiness industry has 'geared up' to fight what they
see as the increasing popularity of organic growing and marketing?
> > > Programs such as you saw often are
> > > initiated by industry interests with some dumb journalist who
> > > does not know any different.
> >
> > Have you any evidence for this, or is it just speculation?
>
> That there are dumb journalists? Yes I've been interviewed by
> some ;-)
Your statement was not simply that there are dumb journalists, but
rather that "Programs such as you saw often are initiated by industry
interests with some dumb journalist...", which you have yet to support
with any facts.
> > > A standard technique is to interview
> > > someone from the organic/environment side that they know will
> > > probably not be all that competent, and ignore more
> professional
> > > environmentalists.
> >
> > Can you please name a "professional environmentalist" who is
> competent
> > in matters of agricultural science and generally supports the
> statements
> > you posted?
>
> Now why would I emabrass someone by naming them here? And why do
> you assume that this discussion requires 'competence in
> agricultural science'? In 25 years I have met few ag scientists
> with competence in pesticide toxicology, nor economic
> entomologists either. But thats not to say that they do not
> exist.
A rather long way of answering "no" to the question.
> Sustainable agriculture should be an interdisciplinary and
> multidisciplinary endeavour. Heaven help us if it gets left to
> the agricultural scientists.
This particular discussion was specifically directed to food safety and
the risk posed by synthetic pesticide residues. Heaven help us if that
analysis is left to non-scientists!
Tracy
Martin Banschbach
I agree with you and disagree with Paul Rogers.
"76% of American food shoppers questioned believed that pesticides in foods
constitute a 'serious hazard' (Food Marketing Institute, 1987)"
Reported in "Diet and Health" National Research Council, 1989.
Bruce Ames has tried to lead the movement away from the blasting of man-made
chemicals for reeking havoic on human and animal health toward the
realization that natural chemicals pose the greatest threat to human health.
Not only are the natural chemicals much more potent chemical carcinogens
than the man-made chemicals, they are ingested in far larger quantities.
Paul, I know that this is an international forum but the FDA standards are
widely accepted in many other countries.
Vaz, R. "Average Swedish dietary intakes of organochlorine contaminants via
foods of animal origin and their relation to levels in human milk, 1975-90"
Food Addit Contam. 12:543-558,1995. The FDA standards were used for this
study.
Sawaya, WN, et al. "Kuwait's total diet study: dietary intake of
organochlorine, carbamate, benzimidazole and phenylurea pesticide residues"
J. AOAC Int. 82:1458-1465,1999. The FDA lab was asked to help do this
study.
The FDA Lab in Kansas City uses the EPA levels. For the Kuwait study, the
FAO/WHO quidelines were used but it was the FDA lab that did the work.
The FDA is the only goverment agency that analyzes the American food supply
on an annual basis (actually 4 times each year) for contaminants, pesticides
and nutritional value. Even Japan recently admitted that their government
does not monitor the food supply anywhere near as well as the FDA does.
If you go into their database, you are going to find data from countries all
over the world that have asked for their help in determining the health risk
for their people. Beside being asked to come in and analyze their food, the
FDA buys food from about 107 countires to analyze it in their Kansas City
lab.
For 1993, 64% of the food analyzed from all 50 States and Puerto Rico (over
12,000 samples) had no detectable pesticide residues.
For the over 12,000 samples that came from other countries, 69% were found
to have no detectable pesticide residues. Summary data reports that over
98% of all domostic and imported food had either no detectible pesticide
residues or levels that were below the EPA standards. I would say that this
represents a pretty good food supply, especially because all 29 pesticides
known to cause cancer in lab animals are being measured. Paul, you are
right that pesticides can do something other than cause cancer to ruin human
health but it's the cancer that people fear, not the possible sterility.
And even there the plant phytoestrogens may pose a greater risk that the
man-made pesticides.
For lab studies, the natural chemicals are much more potent in causing
cancer in mice and rats than the man-made chemicals are.
29 man-made pesticides are known to cause cancer in rats. 23 of these are
believed to also cause human cancer but the level of exposure in humans is
only going to give odds of well over 1 in a million of the pesticide causing
cancer in a human that ingested it from the food supply (you have better
odds of getting hit my lightening).
Swirsky, GL, et al. "Pesticide residues in food: investigation of
disparities in cancer risk estimates" Cancer Lett. 117:195-207,1997.
In stark contrast to this risk of cancer from man-made chemicals comes the
odds of much better than 1 per million from developing cancer caused by
ingesting aflatoxins (eating moldy food) or hydrazines (eating mushrooms).
NRC Diet and Health Report.
I have a long list of the known natural chemicals that are potent enough in
lab animals to pose a very serious risk of causing cancer in humans.
Bruce Ames is not dumb (and he did not sell out to agribusines). If you
start looking at the mice and rat data, you start seeing some very potent
chemical carcinogens and most of them are natural chemicals, not the
man-made chemicals that everybody is worried about.
Plants are the premier chemcial factories on this plant and they have been
cranking out chemicals to kill anything that ate them since time (life)
began on this planet. They have done a much better job than humans in
cooking up some really potent stuff.
Bruce says potentcy and load both have to be examined. The man-made
pesticides loose on both counts, they are not very potent and they don't
give much of a load.
The American Cancer Society now says that 1 in every 4 Americans will be
diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime. Human cancer is not coming
from the chemicals that man produced.
The public is so paranoid about pesticide residues on the food that they eat
that they bought into the organic food plot lock stock and barrel. The news
report tried to knock organic produce from a safety viewpoint. They really
missed the mark. Bacterial contamination is not a very big issue. Organic
produce provides absolutely no protection from cancer because if you
understand the causes of cancer, you know that the man-made chemicals play
only a very small role in the cancer rate in humans. Margarine is better
than butter was a big lie. Organic is better than convential produce is
another big lie.
"Pesticide program. Residue monitoring 1993. Food and Drug Administration" J
AOAC Int. 77:161A-185A,1994.
For PCB, the story is even better. 62% of American human adipose tissue
samples had over 1ppm of PCB in 1972. In 1984, when the testing program at
the FDA was shut down, only 2% of the samples had more than 1ppm.
Our environment and our food is a lot safer now than it was just a few
decades ago. If human cancer was really coming from all of the chemicals
that man dumped into the environment, don't you think that we should be
seeing a decrease in the cancer rate in humans? I wonder why this is not
happening? Could it be that diet (natural pesticides) is reponsible for
most cancer in people who do not smoke? Could the plants on our planet
really be trying to kill us off?
Could organic, which has a higher insect preditation rate, actually be worse
than conventional because every plant produces more natural insecticides
when attacked by insects?
Tim Lamb
<aqu...@bpmlegal.com> writes
>Generally the scientific method cannot prove anything - it can only be
>used to disprove something. However, the available data indicate that
>natural pesticides are present in food at concentrations thousands of
>times higher than the residues of synthetic pesticides, thus the
>greatest risk appears to be from natural pesticides, not residues of
>synthetic pesticides.
comforting thought that so called natural foods have been tested by
humans and aren't likely to kill us any faster than they already do.
Whereas the synthetics haven't been around long enough to acquire the
same level of confidence?
regards
--
Tim Lamb
Torsten Brinch
>You said the science does not support a conclusion that the risks of
>pesticide residues is low, so of course, I took that to imply that you
>were actually familiar with the science. But alas, perhaps I was wrong.
>For a short list of relevant publications, see the following:
>http://socrates.berkeley.edu/mutagen//ames.senate_testimony.html
>http://socrates.berkeley.edu/mutagen//ames.summary.html
In which Ames et al advises:
"Caution is necessary in interpreting the implications of the
occurrence in the diet of natural pesticides that are rodent
carcinogens. It is not argued here that these dietary exposures
are necessarily of much relevance to human cancer. Indeed, a
diet rich in fruit and vegetables is associated with lower cancer
rates (86,87). This may be because anticarcinogenic vitamins
and antioxidants come from plants (86,87). What is important
in our analysis is that exposures to natural rodent carcinogens
may cast doubt on the relevance of far lower levels of exposures
to synthetic rodent carcinogens. "
><snip> Thus, as Ames concluded in his Senate
>testimony, society is not served by continuing to focus on the minuscule
>health risk posed by synthetic pesticides, rather it would be better
>served by further investigating the effects of natural pesticides, which
>are far more abundant and appear to pose a health risk of significantly
>greater magnitude.
I must rush to the defence of Ames et al, cause I think you are
rather overinterpreting their work and conclusions. E.g., see Ames
quote above, and the actual text of the Senate testimony. It is quite
clear that Ames et al do not advocate 'further investigating the
effects of natural pesticides'. That must be your own brain child, Tracy.
>See publications by Gribble et al. demonstrating the vast abundance of
>natural endocrine disrupters. Synthetic compounds are minor in
>comparison.
I am not aware of any work Gribble has done within the field of
endocrine disrupters? Afaik, Gribble is rather more famous for
articles in which he endeavours to count the number of naturally
occuring organic halogenated compounds, and the amusing way
in which his undoubtedly 'chlorophilic' bias comes through
in those articles. If you have a reference to work Gribble has
done on endocrine disrupters, I would be very grateful.
--
Best regards
Torsten Brinch
Email: ia...@inetdotuni2.dk
(interpret 'dot' in domain name)
Oz
<t...@marford.demon.co.uk> writes
>Is not the problem *fear of risk* rather than actual risk. There is the
>comforting thought that so called natural foods have been tested by
>humans and aren't likely to kill us any faster than they already do.
>Whereas the synthetics haven't been around long enough to acquire the
>same level of confidence?
Not really. It's more a combination of ignorance and those who play on
people's ignorance. In particular people are so far behind the times (I
once stated 30 years behind) that they are worried about things that
scientists in the field worried about 30 years ago and which have long
since been fixed. The classic example is DDT. Children in UK schools
TODAY are still taught that ddt is used in quantity on UK farms when it
had already been banned when I started farming in 1972. People are told
how terribly dangerous and toxic it is but Harold can remember when
whole POPULATIONS were literally liberally doused with DDT powder after
WW2 (and any who entered the US for long afterwards). I have never heard
of any claims of problems during this period to HUMANS. However, this
would unfortunately ruin a good story.
Given the choice of a 1/100th LD50 dose of either mustard oil or
dimethoate (an OP insecticide) I would far prefer the OP. Interestingly
five years ago, before Torsten made me look up the toxicity and risk of
OP's, I would have unhestiatingly said the reverse.
--
Oz
Harold Lindaberry
Oz wrote:
> In article <zpHs0CAv...@marford.demon.co.uk>, Tim Lamb
> <t...@marford.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> >Is not the problem *fear of risk* rather than actual risk. There is the
> >comforting thought that so called natural foods have been tested by
> >humans and aren't likely to kill us any faster than they already do.
> >Whereas the synthetics haven't been around long enough to acquire the
> >same level of confidence?
They've been around long enough to demonstrate safety and certainly
haven't adversely longevity which keeps going up in much ot the world,
>
>
> Not really. It's more a combination of ignorance and those who play on
> people's ignorance. In particular people are so far behind the times (I
> once stated 30 years behind) that they are worried about things that
> scientists in the field worried about 30 years ago and which have long
> since been fixed. The classic example is DDT. Children in UK schools
> TODAY are still taught that ddt is used in quantity on UK farms when it
> had already been banned when I started farming in 1972. People are told
> how terribly dangerous and toxic it is but Harold can remember when
> whole POPULATIONS were literally liberally doused with DDT powder after
> WW2 (and any who entered the US for long afterwards). I have never heard
> of any claims of problems during this period to HUMANS. However, this
> would unfortunately ruin a good story.
Incidentally in addition to animal data there was a lot of DDT human
volunteer feeding data which showed no harmful effects.
Harold
Paul Rogers
belief that organic food was safer than non-organic food.
Pesticide residues are a necessary aspect of this debate.
Paul R
John H. Gohde <johnh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13go4.1345$%M5.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
tr...@my-deja.com
research is just starting to find out that eating organic produce can
be dangerous to our health. the danger is in what they use to grow
it in. they are finding that when they use cow or horse pats there is a
danger of bacteria being in the produce that could be deadly to humans.
it depends on what the hores and cows eat which could be pass on to us.
otherwise it is healthier and safer for us to eat organic grown. find
out who grows your produce and what they use. i use leaves and compost
only and would never use cow or horse pats because i could never know if
i am safe. if you search the net you will find that scientific research
is finding out that more people are dying from organic foods than food
growen the other way. yet the organic food does have more of what we
need. i take a very good suppliment which does the job. some people will
say that what i have said is rubbish - all i will say to them is check
it out.
my e-mail is terry__...@hotmail.com if you what more information
on the above.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Skye
> No, you are wrong. The original poster expressed doubt about her
> belief that organic food was safer than non-organic food.
> Pesticide residues are a necessary aspect of this debate.
Yep.
John H. Gohde
> No, you are wrong.
Nope!
> The original poster expressed doubt about her
> belief that organic food was safer than non-organic food.
?????
That is what I wrote!
> Pesticide residues are a necessary aspect of this debate.
I was complainaing about his pesticide paranoia. He never presented a
rational discussion of pesticides.
>
> Paul R
>
> John H. Gohde <johnh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13go4.1345$%M5.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
John H. Gohde
>
>
> > No, you are wrong. The original poster expressed doubt about her
> > belief that organic food was safer than non-organic food.
>
Nope!
Torsten Brinch
>Given the choice of a 1/100th LD50 dose of either mustard oil or
>dimethoate (an OP insecticide) I would far prefer the OP. Interestingly
>five years ago, before Torsten made me look up the toxicity and risk of
>OP's, I would have unhestiatingly said the reverse.
In either case, Oz, I would find trespassing this close to an LD50
dose unwise. But I would be interested in the considerations
which make you conclude that you would _far_ prefer the OP.
Mind you, if we are talking about a single dose of these two compounds,
a good case can probably be made that no observed harm would be
expected from either experiment, and there is no good reason to
prefer one before the other, I think.
Otoh, if we are talking about a daily dose, I do think I would prefer the
mustard (but darnedly without enthusiasm). Ingestion of mustard
oil at 1/100th LD50 daily would IMO be at least marginally unacceptable,
while in the case of dimethoate the exposure would appear to me to
be clearly unacceptable.
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Paul Rogers
> Paul Rogers wrote:
>
> > Carbamate insecticides including
> > aldicarb, for which there have been recent cases of food
> > poisoning,
>
> When and where? Are you referring to deliberate poisonings,
illegal
> uses, or what?
Refer to the following cases of aldicarb poisoning from
consumption of melons and cucumbers:
Goldman LR, Smith DF, Neutra RR, et al.
Pesticide food poisoning from contaminated watermelons in
California, 1985.
Arch Environ Health (United States), Jul-Aug 1990, 45(4) p229-36
Aldous JC, Ellam GA, Murray V, et al.
An outbreak of illness among schoolchildren in London: toxic
poisoning not mass hysteria.
J Epidemiol Community Health (England), Feb 1994, 48(1) p41-5
Here is a short extract from the Goldman paper:
"On July 4, 1985, California and other western states experienced
the largest known outbreak of food-borne pesticide illness ever
to occur in North America. This was attributed to watermelons
contaminated through the illegal or accidental use of aldicarb by
a few farmers in one part of the state. Within California, a
total of 1,376 illnesses resulting from consumption of
watermelons was reported to the California Department of Health
Services (CDHS). Of the 1,376 illnesses, 77% were classified as
being probable or possible carbamate illnesses. Many of the case
reports involved multiple illnesses associated with the same
melon among unrelated individuals. Seventeen individuals required
hospitalization. There were 47 reports of illness involving
pregnant women, two of whom reported having subsequent
stillbirths."
> > and other toxicologically important carbamates
> > including benomyl were not measured.
>
> Which food products were included in the survey that are
routinely
> treated with these pesticides?
Do you want me to list all the registrations for all food use
carbamates from that time? I can, but don't be silly. The salient
fact is that no measurement of the major group of insecticides --
carbamates -- was made.
> > Reporting of pesticides
> > used 'post harvest' where the potential for residues is high,
was
> > also deficient.
>
> Which food products were included in the survey that are
routinely
> treated 'post harvest' and with which particular pesticides
that were
> not included in the analysis? Unless you are simply
speculating, you
> should be able to provide a factual basis to support your
assertions.
Same as above. I also note that DuPont withdrew the registration
of benomyl for post harvest application.
> > I spoke to a government chemist at the time who
> > confirmed that reliable analytical methods for many
pesticides
> > were either too unreliable or too expensive to perform.
>
> Would you prefer they used unreliable methods?
No, but it supports my contention that food residue surveys are
not informative because many pesticides cannot be measured with
sufficient precision. This aspect of regulation was also
reviewed, and recommendations for improvement made, in the NRC
report "Pesticides in the Diet of Children", 1993.
> > My point was that the rhetoric of relative safety of
pesticide
> > residues is not supported by the science.
>
> You have yet to provide any evidence that refutes the
conclusions of the
> survey to which you refer.
You are wrong. I have adequately demonstrated that pesticide
residue surveys in general, and the Australian 1992 survey as an
example, are not the reliable indicators of safe food that
governments and industry rhetoric would have consumers believe.
The NRC report "Pesticides in Diets of Children", which can be
read at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/2126.html, also described
insufficiencies in the US pesticide residue regulatory system.
You have conveniently ignored the conclusions of this publication
which clearly indicated that tolerances may not have been
adequate to protect the health of children.
>
> > My guess is that food
> > supplies in the US and Australia are probably of low risk
from
> > pesticide residues,
>
> Good guess.
Yes, but residue reporting does not support my guess. And
population risk is not to be confused with individual risk. The
aldicarb poisonings demonstrate this.
> Generally the scientific method cannot prove anything - it can
only be
> used to disprove something. However, the available data
indicate that
> natural pesticides are present in food at concentrations
thousands of
> times higher than the residues of synthetic pesticides, thus
the
> greatest risk appears to be from natural pesticides, not
residues of
> synthetic pesticides.
Lets do a simple risk assessment for this. Assume that an average
American diet has (X) amount of natural toxins and that this diet
is generally regarded as safe (GRAS) -- which it is -- or are you
saying that the average diet high in fruit and vegetables is
toxic?
Now clearly in the case of the aldicarb poisonings (above), there
was a load of a synthetic pesticide (Y), albeit a very toxic one,
which caused significant adverse health effects.
Clearly you are wrong again. X alone does not cause significant
adverse health effects, (or the dieticians have it wrong), but
add a pesticide residue in sufficient quantity and with a high
enough toxicity, and you do have a toxic diet, ie, X+Y. Ames is
often misquoted for self-serving interests. If the dose is high
enough, and the toxicity great enough, pesticide residues are a
problem. In the aldicarb case, acute toxicity was the end point,
but there are other non-cancer end points, and the aldicarb
incidents were only noticeable because of the well-defined cohort
and circumstances. It is likely that more incidents of this
nature, but with lesser or more subtle consequences, go
unreported.
My original advice to Skye was to continue to eat organic,
preferably to grow her own if she wants to avoid such
possibilities, however unlikely they may be to occur. How often
they do occur is not known.
> > In countries where
> > organochlorines (lindane, DDT, heptachlor etc) are still in
use,
> > bioaccumulation in human tissue adds an additional potential
risk
> > factor.
>
> Even so, any associated human health risk is quite low. Are you
not
> aware that millions of people were literally doused with DDT
during the
> second world war, with no known toxic effects resulting
therefrom?
I am quite aware that DDT was used to de-louse troups in WW2. It
has low dermal toxicity. It's possible role, with associated
compounds, in breast cancer remains unresolved. The ecotoxicity
of DDT to avian species is well established.
> You said the science does not support a conclusion that the
risks of
> pesticide residues is low, so of course, I took that to imply
that you
> were actually familiar with the science. But alas, perhaps I
was wrong.
> For a short list of relevant publications, see the following:
>
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/mutagen//ames.senate_testimony.html
> http://socrates.berkeley.edu/mutagen//ames.summary.html
I have been reading Ames et al for 25 years.
> I generally provide references without being asked, and almost
always
> provide them when asked. Maybe you can read the papers in the
above
> lists and show how I have misrepresented the conclusions
therein? Note
> that the national Cancer Institute also agrees that pesticide
residues
> are not a significant health risk (although the NCI is part of
a
> government agency).
You have misrepresented Ames' work by implying that his
conclusions apply to toxicity end points other than cancer and
with scant recognition of the importance of dose and toxicity.
Please show me where the NCI says this? Which residues, at what
dose, for which chemicals, and for what periods of time?
> I note you referred to the Australian press release as
"propaganda" one
> should not believe. So is a press release "propaganda" and
unbelievable
> only when it does not support your position?
I place more credibility in press releases from the National
Research Council than from government agencies. Call me
suspicious, but, well . . .
> Who suggested it was "the final word"? The fact remains, the
available
> data indicate that natural pesticides are present in food at
> concentrations thousands of times higher than residues of
synthetic
> pesticides, and the greatest risk appears to be from natural
pesticides,
> not residues of synthetic pesticides. The synthetic pesticides
are a
> proverbial "drop-in-the-bucket". It is not the final word,
rather it is
> simply all that can be supported with the data that are
currently
> available.
Clearly you are wrong. You have been using the Ames and Gold
papers on natural toxins to the exclusion of other points of
view. Your bias or ignorance is startlingly evident. You also
fail to acknowledge that this work (Ames) has been primarily in
the context of carcinogen risk assessment. Natural toxins in
large quantities in diets are generally regarded as safe. I have
shown that substantially smaller residues of toxic pesticides can
be very unsafe.
> > The data are not 'in' on this issue -- which was reflected in
my
> > original statement that we do not yet know the effects of
long
> > term exposure to residues of synthetic substances,
>
> The first step towards wisdom is to realize that one cannot
"know"
> anything. However, use of the scientific method allows one to
make
> certain logical conclusions based on evidence.
Do you mean 'know' in the Biblical sense :-) I understand the
difficulty, perhaps impossibility of showing causality in the
environmental heatlh sciences.
You are making illogical conclusions based on one scientist's
perspective. You have failed the scientific method. For an
alternative perspective see:
Public health risks associated with pesticides and natural toxins
in foods
D. Pimentel1, T. W. Culliney2, and T. Bashore1
1 College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Cornell University, Comstock Hall
http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/pimentel.htm
> See publications by Gribble et al. demonstrating the vast
abundance of
> natural endocrine disrupters. Synthetic compounds are minor in
> comparison.
This is sloppy. You have misleadingly equated organohalogens with
endocrine disruptors. Perhaps you should use Stephen Safe's work
(Texas A&M) on endocrine effects to support your bias. I have
written on Gribble's 'natural organohalogen' perpspective in
another forum.
> > My position is that we do not yet know,
>
> So you admit then that there is really no evidence to support
your
> conclusion. Thank you.
Use of the scientific method allows one to make certain logical
conclusions based on evidence. The evidence is sufficient in
animal tests and human investigations to show that pesticide
residues of significant quantities for pesticides of particular
toxicity cause adverse health effects -- and that such such
residues do occur (see aldicarb above). Similar adverse
consequences with chronic exposures above threshold doses can be
expected -- as can residue samples that exceed these thresholds.
I am making certain logical conclusions based on evidence.
> > Hmmm, yes, that's the point isn't it? With dry weight, I
suspect
> > that you would get a reasonable measure of mineral content,
but
> > not a very useful measure of vitamins, particulary water
soluble
> > vitamins.
>
> Why not? Do the water soluble vitamins somehow disappear when
the water
> content of a food is evaporated before dry matter analysis?
No, but vitamins being organic (chemical sense) compounds may
degrade. Are you saying that a dried tomato has the same vitamin
C content as one picked fresh?
> > Sustainable agriculture should be an interdisciplinary and
> > multidisciplinary endeavour. Heaven help us if it gets left
to
> > the agricultural scientists.
>
> This particular discussion was specifically directed to food
safety and
> the risk posed by synthetic pesticide residues. Heaven help us
if that
> analysis is left to non-scientists!
. . . or lawyers!
Cheers,
Paul R.
Paul Rogers
you may wish to read my response to T Aquilla. Most is relevent
to your post.
I respect the EPA and FDA regulatory procedures and I wish
Australian authorities had the same degree of discipline and
direction.
However, if you read my response to TA, you will see that:
1. The pesticide residue survey system in any country is
necessary, but generally flawed and does not provide a
reassurance that food is as safe as authorities would like to
portray -- although as I have agreed -- the risks, on a
population basis are probably low. However, this does not mean
that 'hot spots' of high residues do not occur and cause adverse
consequences -- perhaps some that are irreversible. Note the data
on aldicarb poisonings. Population risk should not be confused
with individual risk. Ames' work on natural toxins and
carcinogenic risk is essentially that. You should not use it to
extrapolate to other circumstances. Cancer is essentially a
multifactorial disease, but I would be keen to reduce my exposure
to additional carcinogens in food, and particularly in water
where the dose ingested could be much greater.
2. As a logical consequence, organically produced food, without
toxic pesticides, is safer (but not risk free), particulary if
produced personally. This is a no-brainer, surely; and that is
what I said to Skye in my answer to her question in
sci.med.nutrition. I cross posted it here because I thought it
would be of interest.
I am not an organic bigot, I support IPM, and I understand that
the organic movement is a bit 'woolly' with the science. But the
benefits of moving in the organic direction are manifold. At each
stage of the pesticide life cycle, someone is exposed:
manufacturers, transporters, appliers, pickers, and consumers.
Residues contaminate water, air and food -- and the consequences
and the external costs of this are substantial. That is why I
support organic growing.
Incidently, in recent years, Australian beef has been rejected
for export to the USA and Japan because it exceeded your
tolerances. Two of the pesticides that I recall were
chorfluazuron and endosulfan. Some batches that were intercepted
in Australia were re-distributed to the Australian market! It
seems our consumers have higher toxicity thresholds than yours
;-).
Paul R
Martin Banschbach <mba...@osu-com.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:<87shrc$9q...@news.cis.okstate.edu>...
Paul Rogers
Tim Lamb <t...@marford.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> Is not the problem *fear of risk* rather than actual risk.
There is the
> comforting thought that so called natural foods have been
tested by
> humans and aren't likely to kill us any faster than they
already do.
> Whereas the synthetics haven't been around long enough to
acquire the
> same level of confidence?
Yes, I think this is part of it, and it may be a useful
evolutionary strategy. Food taboos -- what to eat, what not to
eat -- have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years or
longer. Synthetic pesticides have only been with us for fifty
years or so.
The other point is that certain organic pesticide compounds may
be unlike most of the organic natural toxins in foods, and thus,
human detoxification pathways may not operate as well. I am
thinking of heavily chlorinated compounds, perhaps like
hexachlorobenzene (HCB), and mirex along those lines. But as a
certain correspondent will remind me, that is probably a
hypothesis only ;-).
Cheers,
Paul R
Paul Rogers
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+fFKqCAF...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
>
> Not really. It's more a combination of ignorance and those who
play on
> people's ignorance. In particular people are so far behind the
times (I
> once stated 30 years behind) that they are worried about things
that
> scientists in the field worried about 30 years ago and which
have long
> since been fixed. The classic example is DDT. Children in UK
schools
> TODAY are still taught that ddt is used in quantity on UK farms
when it
> had already been banned when I started farming in 1972. People
are told
> how terribly dangerous and toxic it is but Harold can remember
when
> whole POPULATIONS were literally liberally doused with DDT
powder after
> WW2 (and any who entered the US for long afterwards). I have
never heard
> of any claims of problems during this period to HUMANS.
However, this
> would unfortunately ruin a good story.
DDT is of low dermal toxicity, but a study to investigate the
adverse consequences of DDT in WW2 would be very difficult to
design. It would be confounded by all sorts of other exposures
including smoking and poor diet in the field.
In any case, DDT is clearly toxic to avian species through
reproduction and this was a major reason it was banned in most
developed nations in the 70s and 80s.
> Given the choice of a 1/100th LD50 dose of either mustard oil
or
> dimethoate (an OP insecticide) I would far prefer the OP.
Interestingly
> five years ago, before Torsten made me look up the toxicity and
risk of
> OP's, I would have unhestiatingly said the reverse.
I would be very reluctant to judge the toxicity of any substance
based on rodent LD50s. It is interesting to compare human LD low
(lethal dose low) to LD50s in RTECS. For pesticides, the trend is
definitely to lower lethal doses, although this is clearly not an
average.
Paul R
Harold Lindaberry
Torsten Brinch wrote:
> Oz skrev i meddelelsen <+fFKqCAF...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>...
>
> >Given the choice of a 1/100th LD50 dose of either mustard oil or
> >dimethoate (an OP insecticide) I would far prefer the OP. Interestingly
> >five years ago, before Torsten made me look up the toxicity and risk of
> >OP's, I would have unhestiatingly said the reverse.
>
> In either case, Oz, I would find trespassing this close to an LD50
> dose unwise. But I would be interested in the considerations
> which make you conclude that you would _far_ prefer the OP.
>
> Mind you, if we are talking about a single dose of these two compounds,
> a good case can probably be made that no observed harm would be
> expected from either experiment, and there is no good reason to
> prefer one before the other, I think.
>
> Otoh, if we are talking about a daily dose, I do think I would prefer the
> mustard (but darnedly without enthusiasm). Ingestion of mustard
> oil at 1/100th LD50 daily would IMO be at least marginally unacceptable,
> while in the case of dimethoate the exposure would appear to me to
> be clearly unacceptable.
As my granddad told me in my youth " ones mans meat is another mans
poison "
Harold
Oz
<con...@imagic.com.au> writes
>DDT is of low dermal toxicity, but a study to investigate the
>adverse consequences of DDT in WW2 would be very difficult to
>design. It would be confounded by all sorts of other exposures
>including smoking and poor diet in the field.
Clearly a very small effect indeed despite the high and unregulated
doses given.
>In any case, DDT is clearly toxic to avian species through
>reproduction and this was a major reason it was banned in most
>developed nations in the 70s and 80s.
Correct, this is well known. Very early 70's in most advanced countries
and for many years essentially banned for field use outside of the
communinist countries.
>I would be very reluctant to judge the toxicity of any substance
>based on rodent LD50s. It is interesting to compare human LD low
>(lethal dose low) to LD50s in RTECS. For pesticides, the trend is
>definitely to lower lethal doses, although this is clearly not an
>average.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of human toxicity studies for pesticides.
Given the published variability of LD50 (which is not a good toxicity
measure) between mammalian species I would expect humans to be about
average on average and typically for any individual product some way
away (either side) of the average. The indications I have seen suggest
humans are rather more adept at dealing with poisons than most animals.
Either way modern pesticides are rather non-toxic and I for one am
vastly more concerned for the person applying the product than ppt
levels in a small percentage of vegetables.
--
Oz
Oz
<con...@imagic.com.au> writes
>The other point is that certain organic pesticide compounds may
>be unlike most of the organic natural toxins in foods, and thus,
>human detoxification pathways may not operate as well. I am
>thinking of heavily chlorinated compounds, perhaps like
>hexachlorobenzene (HCB), and mirex along those lines. But as a
>certain correspondent will remind me, that is probably a
>hypothesis only ;-).
The breakdown products, and their toxicity, and the means of excretion
for various mammals are requirements for modern pesticides. All must be
shown to be safe. It's one of the reasons why pesticide registration
costs many tens of millions of UK pounds to do.
--
Oz
Oz
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>In either case, Oz, I would find trespassing this close to an LD50
>dose unwise.
I do not intend to find out.
--
Oz
Harold Lindaberry
Oz wrote:
> In article <kFyo4.23075$3b6....@ozemail.com.au>, Paul Rogers
> <con...@imagic.com.au> writes
>
> >DDT is of low dermal toxicity, but a study to investigate the
> >adverse consequences of DDT in WW2 would be very difficult to
> >design. It would be confounded by all sorts of other exposures
> >including smoking and poor diet in the field.
>
> Clearly a very small effect indeed despite the high and unregulated
> doses given.
Usually a shot of 5 or 10% dust up each sleeve down the crotch area and
down the shirt neck.
>
>
> >In any case, DDT is clearly toxic to avian species through
> >reproduction and this was a major reason it was banned in most
> >developed nations in the 70s and 80s.
Actually the recommendation of the scientific advisory panel (
appointed by Ruckleshaus ) was not cancellation but more restrictive
labeling around water.
>
>
> Correct, this is well known. Very early 70's in most advanced countries
> and for many years essentially banned for field use outside of the
> communinist countries.
>
> >I would be very reluctant to judge the toxicity of any substance
> >based on rodent LD50s. It is interesting to compare human LD low
> >(lethal dose low) to LD50s in RTECS. For pesticides, the trend is
> >definitely to lower lethal doses, although this is clearly not an
> >average.
>
> Interesting, I wasn't aware of human toxicity studies for pesticides.
> Given the published variability of LD50 (which is not a good toxicity
> measure) between mammalian species I would expect humans to be about
> average on average and typically for any individual product some way
> away (either side) of the average. The indications I have seen suggest
> humans are rather more adept at dealing with poisons than most animals.
>
> Either way modern pesticides are rather non-toxic and I for one am
> vastly more concerned for the person applying the product than ppt
> levels in a small percentage of vegetables.
According to one of the former FDA - EPA pathologists he indicated- it
was well recognized that diets high in brassica family induce thyroid
hyperplasia,
Harold.
>
>
> --
> Oz
Martin Banschbach PhD
>'hot spots' of high residues do not occur and cause adverse
>consequences
Yes, 2% of food tested in the U.S. does exceed EPA guidelines. Sometimes that
food is rejected but I have often wondered how much is still let through.
Even if a particular food does not exceed EPA guidlines, local high consumption
will produce hot spots (higher than anticipated exposure to a population
subgroup).
Before Consumer Reports started to analyze peanut butter for aflatoxins, there
was no standard for safe peanut butter sold in the U.S.
Aflatoxins are one of the most potent rat carcinogens detected to date and
there are now estimates of the liver cancer incidence in humans that consume
moldy peanuts or products made from moldy peanuts.
The peanut butter scare occurred because the EPA and FDA were not testing for
the most potent carcinogen that humans are routinely expose to (too much focus
on the man-made chemicals).
Liver cancer is rare in the U.S. but quite common in other parts of the world.
Since kids eat a lot of peanut butter, they would be at high risk.
This is one flaw in the testing system, EPA guidelines are for adult exposure.
Kids are going to be affected by these chemicals much more than adults will be
affected.
>Cancer is essentially a
>multifactorial disease,
I attended an international symposium on cancer a little over 1 year ago. One
speaker was an epidemiologist who presented data showing that every human adult
produces 300 transformed (premalignant) cells every day and 6 cancer cells
every day.
Every human on this planet has cancer. What is amazing is that only 1 in 4
Americans will actually be diagnosed with cancer.
This background cancer rate is coming from free radical damge to the DNA. Some
of it is part of noraml metabolism and some of it is from the background
radiation coming from space.
But some of it, according to this expert, is coming from the plant food that we
eat.
All mushrooms produce a chemical that is a free radical generator. Free
radical generators work extremely well to keep insects and animals from eating
the plant material.
We consider some muschrooms safe to eat and others not safe to eat. Paul, the
only difference is the amount of this plant chemical. The poisonous mushrooms
have enough to kill almost instantly. The antidote for mushroom toxicity
(extensive liver and kidney damage) is IV lipoic acid.
I can't tell you how many humans eat mushrooms on a regular basis. Beside the
aflatoxins, the only other natural chemical where an estimate of human cancer
rate has been made is for this chemical that will be in all mushrooms.
Humans seem to be the only animals that will eat mushrooms. I don't know of
any insects that will eat them either.
>2. As a logical consequence, organically produced food, without
>toxic pesticides, is safer
It's only safer if the natural plant defense against insect attack has not been
activated. This natural defense system that all plants use is far more toxic
than the man-made chemicals used to protect the plant material from insect
attack.
Marty B, "You are what you eat."
Alf Christophersen
PhD) wrote:
>>Cancer is essentially a
>>multifactorial disease,
>
>I attended an international symposium on cancer a little over 1 year ago. One
>speaker was an epidemiologist who presented data showing that every human adult
>produces 300 transformed (premalignant) cells every day and 6 cancer cells
>every day.
Is that netto production ? I learned that we form btw. 10000 and 1
million cancer cells pr year but our immune system take care normally
of the same amount of cells, but that if you do something that harm
the immune system, the amounts of cells removed may be drastically
reduced while at same time, amount of cancer cells formed may increase
dramatically.
PGE2 in huge amounts is a significant immune system quencher as
reported in many articles.
Tracy Aquilla
> Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
> news:38A197E6...@bpmlegal.com...
> > Paul Rogers wrote:
> >
> >
> > When and where? Are you referring to deliberate poisonings,
> > illegal uses, or what?
>
> "On July 4, 1985, California and other western states experienced
> the largest known outbreak of food-borne pesticide illness ever
> to occur in North America. This was attributed to watermelons
> contaminated through the illegal or accidental use of aldicarb by
As I suspected, your reference was to an illegal use, which may even
have been deliberate. Are illegal uses or deliberate poisonings somehow
not possible for organic produce?
> > > and other toxicologically important carbamates
> > > including benomyl were not measured.
> >
> > Which food products were included in the survey that are
> > routinely treated with these pesticides?
>
> Do you want me to list all the registrations for all food use
> carbamates from that time? I can, but don't be silly. The salient
> fact is that no measurement of the major group of insecticides --
> carbamates -- was made.
You still have not shown that carbamates were relevant to the foods
included in the survey. Did the survey report not state why carbamates
were not analyzed?
> > > Reporting of pesticides
> > > used 'post harvest' where the potential for residues is high,
> > > was also deficient.
> >
> > Unless you are simply speculating, you should be able to provide a factual basis > > to support your assertions.
>
> Same as above.
Yes, as above, you have not shown that any of the foods included in the
survey would usually be treated post harvest. Did the survey report not
state why pesticides used post harvest were not analyzed?
> I also note that DuPont withdrew the registration
> of benomyl for post harvest application.
So what; do you know why? Maybe they chose to spend the money elsewhere,
such as on newer pesticides.
> > Would you prefer they used unreliable methods?
>
> No, but it supports my contention that food residue surveys are
> not informative because many pesticides cannot be measured with
> sufficient precision.
The fact that they are not perfect does not mean residue surveys are not
informative. Apparently you are not a scientist, or you would probably
know better.
> > > My point was that the rhetoric of relative safety of pesticide
> > > residues is not supported by the science.
> >
> > You have yet to provide any evidence that refutes the
> > conclusions of the survey to which you refer.
>
> You are wrong. I have adequately demonstrated that pesticide
> residue surveys in general, and the Australian 1992 survey as an
> example, are not the reliable indicators of safe food that
> governments and industry rhetoric would have consumers believe.
You used one survey to generalize that all surveys are unreliable. In
fact, you have not even established that the survey to which you refer
is unreliable.
> The NRC report "Pesticides in Diets of Children", which can be
> read at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/2126.html, also described
> insufficiencies in the US pesticide residue regulatory system.
See above - a deficiency does not necessarily mean the data are not
useful or reliable.
> Lets do a simple risk assessment for this. Assume that an average
> American diet has (X) amount of natural toxins and that this diet
> is generally regarded as safe (GRAS) -- which it is -- or are you
> saying that the average diet high in fruit and vegetables is
> toxic?
Nobody ever claimed that the average diet high in fruit and vegetables
is toxic. Apparently what you cannot grasp is that synthetic pesticide
residues are simply not significant in comparison to the overwhelming
abundance of natural carcinogens. Once you realize this simple fact, we
can end this silly discussion.
> Now clearly in the case of the aldicarb poisonings (above), there
> was a load of a synthetic pesticide (Y), albeit a very toxic one,
> which caused significant adverse health effects.
Yes, occasionally people break the rules. That is why food is regularly
monitored and tested at random (including organic foods).
> Clearly you are wrong again.
Wrong about what?
> X alone does not cause significant
> adverse health effects, (or the dieticians have it wrong), but
> add a pesticide residue in sufficient quantity and with a high
> enough toxicity, and you do have a toxic diet, ie, X+Y.
Now you are making up hypotheticals. Please, just stick to the facts.
> Ames is often misquoted for self-serving interests.
If I have misquoted anything, you have not identified it as such.
> If the dose is high
> enough, and the toxicity great enough, pesticide residues are a
> problem.
Of course, but according to the available data, synthetic pesticide
residues generally are not a problem because they are insignificant in
comparison to natural pesticides, which are far more abundant.
> My original advice to Skye was to continue to eat organic,
> preferably to grow her own if she wants to avoid such
> possibilities, however unlikely they may be to occur. How often
> they do occur is not known.
I am not giving anyone advice. Rather, I am simply reciting relevant
facts that are known about pesticides.
> > Maybe you can read the papers in the above
> > lists and show how I have misrepresented the conclusions
> > therein? Note that the national Cancer Institute also agrees that pesticide
> > residues are not a significant health risk (although the NCI is part of
> > a government agency).
>
> You have misrepresented Ames' work by implying that his
> conclusions apply to toxicity end points other than cancer and
> with scant recognition of the importance of dose and toxicity.
I never made any statement implying that "his conclusions apply to
toxicity end points other than cancer" or that accidental or illegal
uses never occur. You are simply using inductive reasoning to conclude
that food is generally contaminated with significant residues of
synthetic pesticides. Your conclusion is not supported by the available
data.
> Please show me where the NCI says this?
I will try to dig up the report I was thinking of. From memory, it was
published around 1996 or so and NCI concluded that dietary exposure to
synthetic pesticide residues was not a significant source of cancer
risk. Of course, you might also review some of the papers cited in Ames'
Senate testimony, such as: Devesa, S.S., et al., Recent cancer trends in
the United States. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 1995. 87: p. 175-182.
> I place more credibility in press releases from the National
> Research Council than from government agencies. Call me
> suspicious, but, well . . .
So why dwell on what NCI says, if you find the NAS more credible?
[snip]
> > The synthetic pesticides are a
> > proverbial "drop-in-the-bucket". It is not the final word,
> > rather it is simply all that can be supported with the data that are
> > currently available.
>
> Clearly you are wrong. You have been using the Ames and Gold
> papers on natural toxins to the exclusion of other points of
> view.
Such as what? The NAS agrees, does it not? The fact that occasionally
people are poisoned by the illegal use of a pesticide does not indicate
that organic food is "safer". Of course, Aldicarb could just as well be
applied illegally to organically grown watermelons.
> Your bias or ignorance is startlingly evident.
Hey, I'm not the one giving others advice or advocating a particular
choice in diets - that is your realm. The fact is, you have yet to cite
any evidence that supports your assertion that organic food is safer
than conventionally grown.
> You also
> fail to acknowledge that this work (Ames) has been primarily in
> the context of carcinogen risk assessment.
I have never stated otherwise. For the record, I so acknowledge. Happy
now?
> Natural toxins in
> large quantities in diets are generally regarded as safe.
Yes, and the minuscule residues of synthetic pesticides are
insignificant in comparison, and therefore at least as safe.
> I have
> shown that substantially smaller residues of toxic pesticides can
> be very unsafe.
No, you have merely shown that illegal use resulting in residues above
that allowed by law can result in acute toxicity. Big deal. This, of
course, is hardly surprising. BTW, you ought to know that in certain
cases, natural pesticides have also been shown to be unsafe.
> You are making illogical conclusions based on one scientist's
> perspective. You have failed the scientific method.
No, I simply informed you as to Ames' and others' conclusions, which are
not my own.
> > See publications by Gribble et al. demonstrating the vast
> abundance of
> > natural endocrine disrupters. Synthetic compounds are minor in
> > comparison.
>
> This is sloppy. You have misleadingly equated organohalogens with
> endocrine disruptors.
Why do you think DDT was banned? Are you really ignorant of the fact
that organohalogens can be endocrine disrupters? See, for example, the
following article on "xenoestrogenic organochlorine pesticides in
food": Environmental Health Perspectives 106, Supplement 6, December
1998, "Comparative Estrogenic Activity of Wine Extracts and
Organochlorine Pesticide Residues in Food".
> Perhaps you should use Stephen Safe's work
> (Texas A&M) on endocrine effects to support your bias.
What bias? I am not the one advising others what to eat. If I am held to
be biased at all, it would probably be in favor of organic foods, since
that is what I grow and generally buy. I have no ax to grind here.
> written on Gribble's 'natural organohalogen' perpspective in
> another forum.
Good.
> > > My position is that we do not yet know,
> >
> > So you admit then that there is really no evidence to support
> your
> > conclusion. Thank you.
>
> Use of the scientific method allows one to make certain logical
> conclusions based on evidence. The evidence is sufficient in
> animal tests and human investigations to show that pesticide
> residues of significant quantities for pesticides of particular
> toxicity cause adverse health effects -- and that such such
> residues do occur (see aldicarb above).
Sure, there is the occasional accidental or deliberate poisoning.
However, you cannot support your claim that organically grown food is
safer than conventionally grown food.
> > > Hmmm, yes, that's the point isn't it? With dry weight, I
> suspect
> > > that you would get a reasonable measure of mineral content,
> but
> > > not a very useful measure of vitamins, particulary water
> soluble
> > > vitamins.
> >
> > Why not? Do the water soluble vitamins somehow disappear when
> the water
> > content of a food is evaporated before dry matter analysis?
>
> No, but vitamins being organic (chemical sense) compounds may
> degrade.
The issue is whether they degrade upon evaporation of water before doing
dry matter analysis. Do you allege that is the case?
> > This particular discussion was specifically directed to food
> safety and
> > the risk posed by synthetic pesticide residues. Heaven help us
> if that
> > analysis is left to non-scientists!
>
> . . . or lawyers!
Which one are you? I am a scientist, not a lawyer.
Tracy
Tracy Aquilla
[snip]
> toxic pesticides, is safer (but not risk free), particulary if
But your assumption is incorrect - of course, organically produced food
is not "without toxic pesticides", rather it is loaded with them, as are
all plants, no matter how they are grown.
> Residues contaminate water, air and food -- and the consequences
> and the external costs of this are substantial.
Actually, it is the cost of continuing to focus inappropriately on
pesticide residues that Ames called into question in his Senate
testimony.
Tracy
Oz
<har...@epix.net> writes
>
>Oz wrote:
>
>> In article <kFyo4.23075$3b6....@ozemail.com.au>, Paul Rogers
>> <con...@imagic.com.au> writes
>>
>> >DDT is of low dermal toxicity, but a study to investigate the
>> >adverse consequences of DDT in WW2 would be very difficult to
>> >design. It would be confounded by all sorts of other exposures
>> >including smoking and poor diet in the field.
>>
>> Clearly a very small effect indeed despite the high and unregulated
>> doses given.
>
> Usually a shot of 5 or 10% dust up each sleeve down the crotch area and
>down the shirt neck.
The film I have seen shows them having their hair VERY liberally dusted
too. These were just people migrating within europe after WW2 (ie
families rejoining, slave workers and so on going home). One got the
impression that some knew the routine already.
--
Oz
Michael Sherman
value of organic food. They seem to reach different conclusions.
I am not familiar with the standards of either journal, but I post
them in the hope that more knowledgeable people can interpret them.
sherm
-----
Effect of agricultural methods on nutritional quality: a comparison of
organic with conventional crops.
Altern Ther Health Med 1998 Jan;4(1):58-69 (ISSN: 1078-6791)
Worthington V [Find other articles with this Author]
NutriKinetics, Washington, DC, USA.
The increasing use of alternative therapies that rely on organically grown
foods has renewed interest in the relationship between agricultural methods
and food quality. The purpose of this article is to review the literature
produced over the last 50 years comparing the nutritional quality of organic
with conventional crops. Whereas few studies have been conducted, there is a
trend in the data indicating higher nutrient content in organically grown
crops. This phenomenon is possibly due to a higher water content in
conventional crops, which causes nutrient dilution. For individual
nutrients, existing studies show that organic fertilization practices
produce crops with higher levels of ascorbic acid, lower levels of nitrate,
and improved protein quality compared with conventionally grown crops.
Although a theoretical rationale exists for possible effects of herbicides
on nutrient content, few studies have examined the effects of these or other
pesticides. Animal studies showed better growth and reproduction in animals
fed organically grown feed compared with those fed conventionally grown
feed. Further research is required to confirm the trends seen in the
existing data and to clarify the exact relationships between agricultural
management and nutritional quality.
-----
[Quality of ecologically produced foods of animal origin]
[Qualitat okologisch erzeugter Lebensmittel tierischer Herkunft.]
DTW Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr 1998 Aug;105(8):327-9 (ISSN: 0341-6593)
Honikel KO [Find other articles with this Author]
Bundesanstalt fur Fleischforschung, Kulmbach.
The production of organic (ecological) food of animal origin is done in many
ways and uses many different breeds. Therefore a real comparison with
conventionally produced food is difficult. From the limited number of
published data it appears, that the characteristics of quality of the
products, the nutritional, hygienic, sensorial and technological factors,
are not very different in both systems of production. In some factors
organic food gets better marks, in others the conventionally produced food.
The differences are in the production system (process quality) during
lifetime of the animals.
Tracy Aquilla
>
> In which Ames et al advises:
> "Caution is necessary in interpreting the implications of the
> occurrence in the diet of natural pesticides that are rodent
> carcinogens. It is not argued here that these dietary exposures
> are necessarily of much relevance to human cancer. Indeed, a
> diet rich in fruit and vegetables is associated with lower cancer
> rates (86,87). This may be because anticarcinogenic vitamins
> and antioxidants come from plants (86,87). What is important
> in our analysis is that exposures to natural rodent carcinogens
> may cast doubt on the relevance of far lower levels of exposures
> to synthetic rodent carcinogens. "
There it is, in a nutshell. Recall that I did not assert that natural
carcinogens are necessarily worrisome, rather, it is simply that if
there is anything worth worrying about, it is not the minuscule residues
of synthetic pesticides. Ames has made this point many times.
> ><snip> Thus, as Ames concluded in his Senate
> >testimony, society is not served by continuing to focus on the minuscule
> >health risk posed by synthetic pesticides, rather it would be better
> >served by further investigating the effects of natural pesticides, which
> >are far more abundant and appear to pose a health risk of significantly
> >greater magnitude.
>
> I must rush to the defence of Ames et al, cause I think you are
> rather overinterpreting their work and conclusions. E.g., see Ames
> quote above, and the actual text of the Senate testimony. It is quite
> clear that Ames et al do not advocate 'further investigating the
> effects of natural pesticides'. That must be your own brain child, Tracy.
As much as I might like to, I cannot personally take any credit for
Dr. Ames' statements. More than once Dr. Ames has stated in his
publications
that the natural pesticides are under-investigated (perhaps one reason
he chose to study them?).
From the text of the Senate testimony:
"Without additional data on mechanism of carcinogenesis for each
chemical, the interpretation of a positive result in a rodent bioassay
is highly uncertain."
So apparently, Dr. Ames believes that society would be served by further
research into the mechanism for each of the natural carcinogens. Of
course, if Ames did not advocate research on natural pesticides, he
probably would not be doing any.
> >See publications by Gribble et al. demonstrating the vast abundance of
> >natural endocrine disrupters. Synthetic compounds are minor in
> >comparison.
>
> I am not aware of any work Gribble has done within the field of
> endocrine disrupters?
Organochlorine compounds are not known or suspected to be endocrine
disrupters? And what was the reason for banning DDT? Torsten, you really
should know better!
Tracy
Harold Lindaberry
Oz wrote:
forgot that - any place there might be hair ;-)
Harold
>
>
> --
> Oz
swroot
> Interesting, I wasn't aware of human toxicity studies for pesticides.
> Given the published variability of LD50 (which is not a good toxicity
> measure) between mammalian species I would expect humans to be about
> average on average and typically for any individual product some way
> away (either side) of the average. The indications I have seen suggest
> humans are rather more adept at dealing with poisons than most animals.
_____________________________________________________
Published Sunday
December 19, 1999
Lincoln Lab Is Only One in U.S. to Test Pesticides on Humans
BY JAKE THOMPSON
COPYRIGHT 1999 OMAHA WORLD-HERALD CO.
Washington - In the only known testing of its kind under way in
the United States, MDS Harris Laboratory in Lincoln has been
conducting pesticide research on humans.
Researchers this year asked volunteers in Nebraska to swallow
small doses of a pesticide to examine its potential harmful
effects on people.
The study was one of 14 submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency that involve people ingesting 10 different
pesticides. The 13 other studies were on volunteers in the
United Kingdom.
Together, the studies are at the heart of a debate among
scientists, ethicists and pesticide makers about the scientific
value, the standards for and the moral justification of testing
pesticides on humans.
While some at the EPA, which regulates pesticides, see clear
value in these human studies, which are legal, many do not, said
John Carley, special assistant in the EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs.
"There are many people at the agency who are troubled by the
fact this testing has ever gone on and is going on, or might
ever go on in the future," Carley said.
The EPA recently established a panel to review human testing.
For the MDS Harris research, some of the 60 volunteers swallowed
a capsule containing chlorpyrifos, a pesticide widely used on
crops as well as in schools, hospitals and 20 million homes to
kill such pests as termites, ticks, cockroaches and fire ants.
The pesticide is commonly marketed as Lorsban or Dursban.
Some of the 60 volunteers were part of a control group and were
given a placebo. The volunteers earned $460 for their
participation. Carley said participants in Great Britain are
paid twice as much.
Earlier this year, the EPA concluded that chlorpyrifos poses
high risks to millions of Americans because it can disrupt the
nervous system.
Supporters of the research said it is hoped that the tests will
show how much of the pesticides can be ingested without any
noticeable harm to people. Those supporters note that doses
given to the volunteers fell well under a toxic dose.
According to results from the MDS Harris study, volunteers who
swallowed the pesticide capsules reported developing one
incident each of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, shortness of
breath, impairment of sensation and chest pain. Those symptoms
were possibly or probably related to ingesting the pesticide,
according to the study.
MDS Harris declined to discuss the study, referring questions to
its client, Dow Chemical, the principal maker of chlorpyrifos.
But Dr. Jim McClurg, MDS Harris' president of life sciences,
said all of its studies follow international rules protecting
participants and are reviewed by independent experts before and
after the work. McClurg said the Lincoln-based company, founded
in 1933, has clinics in a handful of cities worldwide and does a
large amount of research on the clinical development of drugs.
Garry Hamlin, a spokesman for Dow AgroSciences, said Dow sought
the human research to add to the 3,600 previous research studies
and reports on the pesticide. They involved lab studies, animal
research and studies of people who apply the pesticide or
routinely work in areas in which it is applied.
Direct testing on human volunteers can help clear up uncertainty
that exists between animal studies and the eventual impact on
people, he said.
The previous research guided the dosage levels in MDS Harris'
study so that it "would not cause any harm to the volunteers,"
Hamlin said.
Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an
activist organization in Washington that has tracked the human
research trend, called the testing questionable. "Would you want
your kid to participate in a study like this?"
The American Crop Protection Association says that human tests
are safe and that the compounds studied are widely found in
small concentrations in the environment and the nation's food
supply.
For years, the EPA has neither required nor encouraged human
tests. And while such tests flourished in the 1960s and 1970s,
according to Carley, concerns about the ethics and safety led
most companies to discontinue such tests.
Then, in 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act,
which required stricter protections for children from
pesticides.
Attempting to show that their products are safe, large pesticide
makers resumed testing their pesticides on people to aid in the
government's risk assessment. The argument is this: Human
studies are more accurate than animal studies and might
establish a higher safe dose.
In May 1998, the EPA published a federal notice that human tests
might be helpful in assessing safety risks.
When criticism of the notice surfaced, the EPA set up a special
advisory panel to recommend a refined policy that considers the
safety, ethics and conditions for human tests.
The advisory panel held its second meeting Nov. 30. An EPA
background paper for the meeting noted that the agency accepts
other human tests, such as those studying people who apply
pesticides on fields and for businesses.
But the agency said that the 1996 law "may have unintentionally
created an incentive" to test pesticides in human volunteers.
"These studies raise difficult scientific and ethical questions
we are not yet able to answer, and we are deeply concerned about
them," the background paper states.
The pesticide makers compare the pesticide studies to what are
called Phase 1 clinical drug tests commonly submitted to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In those tests, the objective
is to determine adverse reaction levels to a drug.
Jeffrey Kahn, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota and
an EPA advisory panel member, said the pesticide tests are
fundamentally different.
The ultimate goal in drug tests is to make people healthy, he
said, but the pesticide tests help determine at what levels of
exposure people become sick.
Further, the drug tests usually involve people who already are
ill, while the pesticide tests seek healthy subjects.
"I think there's a question of how much risk healthy individuals
should bear when there's not a clear benefit to the person,"
Kahn said. "All of the risk is to the individual subjects, and
all the benefits are to society or the companies producing these
chemicals."
Another issue before the advisory panel is whether human
pesticide studies are statistically valid.
Dr. Herbert Needleman of the University of Pittsburgh, who is a
member of the advisory panel, said the sample size in the 14
studies sent to the EPA was too small. One examined seven
subjects and another examined 50, he said.
That cannot help establish what is called a no-effect level, a
government standard below which there is no noticeable reaction.
A study would need from 1,000 to 5,000 human participants to be
statistically correct, Needleman said.
Ray McAllister, senior director of scientific and regulatory
policy for the Washington-based crop association, disagreed. He
said that the studies are valid because they examine enzyme
function, which varies in humans anyway. So finding a response
in a small number of human pesticide testers could be translated
to the population at large, he said.
It's also important, McAllister said, that the testing subjects
volunteer and are informed of the substance they are taking, the
dosage and its risks.
A copy of the informed-consent form was included in the study
sent to the EPA. The seven-page form explains that the test
involves chlorpyrifos, sketches its effects on the nervous
system, outlines how the study will be conducted and warns that
there are 15 potential adverse reactions, including headache,
dizziness, abdominal cramps, tremors and tightness in the chest.
It also has a pregnancy-related warning: "Although animal
studies indicate little or no risk in humans, the possible side
effects to a fetus or embryo are unknown."
Of the volunteers in the MDS Harris study, 30 were men and 30
were women. Slightly more than one-third were 18 to 25 years
old, the rest in their late 20s to early 50s. Most were
nonsmokers.
The volunteers were enlisted through ads in newspapers and on
MDS Harris' Internet site, such as one ad that says, "EARN EXTRA
MONEY. Make a Difference by Assisting in Medical Research. "
Participants were given health screenings and drug and alcohol
tests to determine medical history and fitness. They were told
that the test material was a registered insecticide, according
to the study.
The volunteers were given capsules with either chlorpyrifos or
the placebo. They were given pills three or four times a day.
Their vital signs were tracked and urine and blood samples were
collected by MDS Harris staff.
The study used two phases and several groups to examine the
effects of a rising dose of chlorpyrifos, documents show.
__________________________________________
regards
sarah
--
-------------------------------------
'Think of it as evolution in action.'
Niven/Pournelle
Harold Lindaberry
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
Actually the first time I talked with Ames he had just completed
development of his Ames test and at that time his work had been concentrated on
pesticides and if anything I would have classed him as anti pesticide - it was
a nice long discussion where we discussed whether it would be a useful
screening tool to weed out chemicals that might offer later toxicology problems
without all the cost - later he expanded his work in to food products and he
found out that pesticides we not as big a potential problem as his first tests
might have initially indicated in fact they were relatively minuscule in
comparison. bread crust was a no no..
Harold
>
Skye
hear what you have to say. I glanced at your site and it said that
'organic foods are not as healthy as some food fadists would have you
believe,' but you don't say more. Please direct me to a place on your
site where you have some references to this claim or elaborate more in a
response. I'm not trying to get into an argument w/you, I just want
some verifiable answers.
Chris Malcolm
>Paul Rogers wrote:
>> 2. As a logical consequence, organically produced food, without
>> toxic pesticides, is safer (but not risk free), particulary if
>But your assumption is incorrect - of course, organically produced food
>is not "without toxic pesticides", rather it is loaded with them, as are
>all plants, no matter how they are grown.
In the UK "organic" is a legally protected food label which cannot be
applied to foods unless, among other things, they have passed tests
which show them to have *very* much lower pesticide levels than are
permitted, and regularly occur, in non-organic foods.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@dai.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085
School of Artificial Intelligence, Division of Informatics
Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
<http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/> DoD #205
Nag@hotmail.com Health Nag
news:38A30079...@nowhere.com...
> Seriously, why don't you answer my original question. I would like to
> hear what you have to say. I glanced at your site
Perhaps you should try reading rather than glancing?
> and it said that
> 'organic foods are not as healthy as some food fadists would have you
> believe,' but you don't say more.
Correct!
Running a web page is time consuming. I will be gradually adding detail.
> Please direct me to a place on your
> site where you have some references to this claim or elaborate more in a
> response. I'm not trying to get into an argument w/you, I just want
> some verifiable answers
Your question has already been answered on this THREAD.
ALL Fruits, Grains, and Vegetables contain pesticides naturally produced by
plants. Furthermore, synthetic pesticides drift by wind onto organically
grown food. Crap falls out of the air, all the time. Have you ever noticed
how crudie dust collects on all your stuff from no where?
Furthermore, organically grown food can be contaminated by animal waste
products.
None of which makes organically grown food heathy.
Get your health questions answered from the Natural Health Perspective at:
http://home.att.net/~johngohde/Consultation.html
There is NO CHARGE for this service.
John Gohde,
Natural Health Advocate of the Healing Power of Nature.
http://home.att.net/~johngohde/
"Quackery has existed since the first knave met the first fool."
--Voltaire
Anyone genuinely interested in diet, nutrition, and nutritional
supplements should take a strong stand against Nutrition Quackery,
Food Faddism, and Nutritional Supplements Quackery anywhere
they see it. If you don't, no one will take your interests seriously.
Quackery is the promotion of a health claim that doesn't have any
basis in published scientific research.
Tracy Aquilla
> >> toxic pesticides, is safer (but not risk free), particulary if
>
> >is not "without toxic pesticides", rather it is loaded with them, as are
> >all plants, no matter how they are grown.
>
> In the UK "organic" is a legally protected food label which cannot be
> applied to foods unless, among other things, they have passed tests
> which show them to have *very* much lower pesticide levels than are
> permitted, and regularly occur, in non-organic foods.
Under the the EU regulations for organic production, samples "may be"
taken for testing of unapproved materials "when unauthorized use is
suspected", but testing is not expressly required under any
circumstances. In fact, under EU law as I understand it, no EU country
can legally require organic foods to undergo "tests which show them to
have *very* much lower pesticide levels" before the organic label is
applied to a food. All that can be required legally is compliance with
the EU organic production regulations.
In any case, the statement above, to which you replied, was in reference
to natural pesticides, which organic foods most certainly are not
without. Did you not read the thread before posting?
Tracy
Martin Banschbach
> >I attended an international symposium on cancer a little over 1 year ago.
One
> >speaker was an epidemiologist who presented data showing that every human
adult
> >produces 300 transformed (premalignant) cells every day and 6 cancer
cells
> >every day.
>
>
> Is that netto production ? I learned that we form btw. 10000 and 1
> million cancer cells pr year but our immune system take care normally
> of the same amount of cells, but that if you do something that harm
> the immune system, the amounts of cells removed may be drastically
> reduced while at same time, amount of cancer cells formed may increase
> dramatically.
That's a rough estimate of daily average production of transformed cells
(mutated cells that loose some metabolic function but do not divide in an
uncontrolled fashion). These transformed cells then have to take another
round of DNA hits leading to unrepaired or improperly repaired DNA damage to
move on to cells that have lost all of their specialized function and start
unregulated cell division. 6 of these cells will be malignant (can spread
throughout the body). Many more benign cells are formed than maligant cells
(benign cells will loose specialized metabolic function and divide in an
unregulated fashion but they can not spread throughout the human body, the
tumor stays localized.
Every malignant cell looses some cell surface antigens (a virus infected
cell looses these same cell surface antigens). I don't know if the benign
cells also loose these specific cell surface antigens. To spread to otther
parts of the body, the dividing cell has to significantly alter it's plasma
membrane but benign cells do not appear to do this. The natural killer cell
has been programed to look for these missing cell surface antigens and spray
the area with superoxide which mixes with nitric oxide to form the
peroxynitrite free radical to destroy any cells in the areas of the natural
killer cell attack. Every one of these cancer cells is supposed to be
destroyed as soon as they are formed.
> PGE2 in huge amounts is a significant immune system quencher as
> reported in many articles.
PGE2 appears to be responsible for the immunosuppression that occurs in
athletes that over train. In lab animals, aspirin has been able to prevent
the development of many different kinds of cancer.
PGE2 does appear to be able to suppress the activity of the natural killer
cell. The Omega diet was tested in the Lyon Heart study against the
American Heart Association diet and found to be superior to the AHA diet in
preventing heart disease development but it also showed a significant effect
on the cancer incidence in the Omega diet group versus the AHA group of
human volunteers (many fewer cancers were detected in the Omega diet group).
No one is ever going to stop cancer cell formation. Bad diet could push the
average number of cancer cells formed each day up but a diet that suppresses
your immune system is going to affect your chance of getting cancer more
than a diet that promotes more cancer cell formation. For cancer to be
diagnosed, one of those cells has to escape and produce a cell line that can
fight off the natural killer cell attack.
Every cancer cell produces PGE2 in large amounts (that's another difference
between malignant and benign, the benign cells do not over produce PGE2).
Once enough cancer cells form a small mass, the killer cells can't get past
the PGE2 protective barrier to wipe the tumor out. We have known from lab
animals that tumor load was critical. If the load could be reduced, the rat
natural killer cells had a chance to take out what was left.
If you can keep the cancer cells from cranking out large amounts of PGE2,
then you also give your natural killer cells a chance to come in and clean
out the tumor mass.
Torsten Brinch
>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <38A197E6...@bpmlegal.com>...
>[snip]
>>
>> In which Ames et al advises:
>> "Caution is necessary in interpreting the implications of the
>> occurrence in the diet of natural pesticides that are rodent
>> carcinogens. It is not argued here that these dietary exposures
>> are necessarily of much relevance to human cancer. Indeed, a
>> diet rich in fruit and vegetables is associated with lower cancer
>> rates (86,87). This may be because anticarcinogenic vitamins
>> and antioxidants come from plants (86,87). What is important
>> in our analysis is that exposures to natural rodent carcinogens
>> may cast doubt on the relevance of far lower levels of exposures
>> to synthetic rodent carcinogens. "
>There it is, in a nutshell. Recall that I did not assert that natural
>carcinogens are necessarily worrisome, rather, it is simply that if
>there is anything worth worrying about, it is not the minuscule residues
>of synthetic pesticides. Ames has made this point many times.
Indeed. But as I read you, you were trying to make the point
that natural carcinogens appear to pose a health risk of significantly
greater magnitude. I infer that you must be thinking of a health risk
from ingesting natural rodent carcinogens in fruits and vegetables.
But Ames has made the point several times, that eating fruits and
vegetables appears to be protective against cancer, and thus
not a risk factor at all.
>> ><snip> Thus, as Ames concluded in his Senate
>> >testimony, society is not served by continuing to focus on the minuscule
>> >health risk posed by synthetic pesticides, rather it would be better
>> >served by further investigating the effects of natural pesticides, which
>> >are far more abundant and appear to pose a health risk of significantly
>> >greater magnitude.
>> <..> Ames et al do not advocate 'further investigating the
>> effects of natural pesticides'. That must be your own brain child, Tracy.
>From the text of the Senate testimony:
>"Without additional data on mechanism of carcinogenesis for each
>chemical, the interpretation of a positive result in a rodent bioassay
>is highly uncertain."
><..>So apparently, Dr. Ames believes that society would be served
>by further research into the mechanism for each of the natural
>carcinogens.
Better read what you quote in stead of dreaming up something.
Dr. Ames simply expresses his judgement that a positive
result in a rodent bioassay cannot be given any precise
interpretation without additional data on mechanism of
carcinogenicity.
>Of course, if Ames did not advocate research on natural
>pesticides, he probably would not be doing any.
Well, is it actually fair to say that Ames is doing original research
on natural pesticides? The research you have been referencing
rather indicates that he has examined the results of other people's
high dose rodent carcinogenicity research and found positive
results of that kind of research difficult to interpret.
>> >See publications by Gribble et al. demonstrating the vast abundance of
>> >natural endocrine disrupters. Synthetic compounds are minor in
>> >comparison.
>> I am not aware of any work Gribble has done within the field of
>> endocrine disrupters?
>Organochlorine compounds are not known or suspected to be endocrine
>disrupters?<..>
No. Mind you, very few generalizations about organochlorine compounds
are true. This is a fact that you, Gribble and many others should try to
learn, IMO. Some organochlorine compounds are known or suspected
endocrine disrupters, of course. But a compound's potential for endocrine
disruption has little or nothing to do with whether it belongs or does not
belong to the extremely diverse group of organochlorine compounds.
>>>See publications by Gribble et al. demonstrating the vast abundance of
>> >natural endocrine disrupters. <..>
As I said above, I am not aware of any work Gribble has done
within the field of endocrine disrupters. Reference please.
Jim Webster
Chris Malcolm wrote in message <
>In the UK "organic" is a legally protected food label which cannot be
>applied to foods unless, among other things, they have passed tests
>which show them to have *very* much lower pesticide levels than are
>permitted, and regularly occur, in non-organic foods.
I think you ought to be a bit more precise here. As you have written it,
what you have said is that food cannot be labelled organic unless it has
been tested. However what you mean is that the food is produced under a
system which has passed tests to show they have lower pesticide levels.
Every individual consignment of food isn't tested. Similarly the tests done
are only for certain pesticides. I'm not sure of the full list but almost by
definition they will be the artificial (man made) pesticides.
I'm not trying to be picky, just trying to make things clearer for
those whose contact with UK organic regulations is restricted to the
usernet.
Out of interest do you know whether the tests for pesticides
included Bt?
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
Martin Banschbach
> Indeed. But as I read you, you were trying to make the point
> that natural carcinogens appear to pose a health risk of significantly
> greater magnitude. I infer that you must be thinking of a health risk
> from ingesting natural rodent carcinogens in fruits and vegetables.
> But Ames has made the point several times, that eating fruits and
> vegetables appears to be protective against cancer, and thus
> not a risk factor at all.
Torsten, Tracy is right, the natural rodent carcinogens pose a considerable
health risk to humans.
Ames can't say that eating plant material will give you cancer (not
politically correct) but I can.
Every plant produces chemicals to keep us (humans), other animals and
insects away from it (keep itself from being eaten).
The natural chemicals are far more potent than the man-made chemicals in
causing cancer in rodents.
Go back in this thread and see what I said to Paul. All 29 known man-made
insecticides that cause cancer in rats has been studied to estimate cancer
risk in humans. Only 23 of these were felt to pose any significant risk to
humans and the best odds are over 1 in a million that any of these man-made
insecticides will cause cancer in humans.
Odds have also been developed for some of the natural chemicals that plants
produce that also cause cancer in rodents, these odds are much better than 1
in a million.
Why in the world do you suspect that humans are estimated to form at least 6
cancer cells every day of our lives? (see Nutritional Oncology, Academic
Press, 1999).
Plants are the premier chemical factories on this plant. They have cooked
up much better stuff than we could ever have dreamed of. There is no aspect
of animal metabolism that plant chemicals do not affect. They affect mood,
reproductive capability, pain sensation, blood pressure, nerve impulse
transmission and yes, DNA damage.
Most of the DNA damage in humans is thought to arise from normal metabolism
but we suspect that some of this damage is coming from plant chemicals that
plants produce to keep us from eating them.
Plant vitamin C and carotenoids can help protect us from some of this damage
but it's pretty much of a wash if we have other plants in our diet that
really know how to damage our DNA, like the mushrooms.
If you let insects get at the plant (organic gardening), that plant is
really going to turn on it's synthesis of natural pesticides and if we eat
it we get a much higher dose of these natural pesticides. For conventional
farming produce, there is very little chance of getting the man-made
pesticides on the food that we buy or even the natural ones in the food that
we buy because we protected the plant from insect attack while we grew it.
If you really want to challenge the human system with natural plant
insecticides, buy organic that has not been protected from insect attack.
There are natural ways to keep insects away from the plant that we want to
eat (when I had time to grow my own produce, I used many of them). But a
commercial grower is unlikely to use these because they are much more
expensive than the man-made pesticides. If you do not keep insects away
from the plant, that plant is going to fight back and if we eat it, we get
caught in the cross fire (our daily cancer cell count goes up).
DrVer...@webtv.net
" The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease" -Thomas Edison (1847-1931)
Michael Sierchio
> I can't imagine how worms and flies could be immune to a free radical
> generator. But for a red blood cell lytic agent, it may only work against
> animals. Some of the snake venom toxins do the same thing (rupture red blood
> cells).
They don't have livers. The free radicals are a by-product of these
substances being metabolized, hemolysis is a result of your own liver's
function.
Mushrooms $8/lb.
Mushrooms (?) $1/lb.
Paul Rogers
Paul Rogers
Scientist
Paul Rogers
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v9VuiCAE...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> Interesting, I wasn't aware of human toxicity studies for
pesticides.
> Given the published variability of LD50 (which is not a good
toxicity
> measure) between mammalian species I would expect humans to be
about
> average on average and typically for any individual product
some way
> away (either side) of the average. The indications I have seen
suggest
> humans are rather more adept at dealing with poisons than most
animals.
The data in RTECS are from deliberate and accidental poisonings.
Be careful with extrapolation. Have a look at the OP insecticide
chlorfenvinfos which is used for flea control on dogs. The LD50
for dogs is around 10,000 mg/kg. For rats about 50 mg/kg. Dogs
apparently have an additional biochemical mechanism that detoxes
it rapidly.
There has been an unfortunate death of a child in Australia
because a vet supplied this insecticide for home use and the
child used it unprotected to wash the dog. Our toxic response is
clearly at the rodent end of the spectrum -- or worse.
Paul R
Martin Banschbach PhD
> kill by hemolytic action (muscarine), and that takes a day or two -
> not instantly - and even they show the marks of hungry invaders.
Ron,
I was not aware of this particular mushroom toxin.
The National Research Council has only established two natural chemicals as
known human cancer risks and set estimates of human cancer occurance from these
carcinogens that I know of.
Aflatoxins from moldy food and hydralazine (sp?) from mushrooms. Hydralazine
is apparently a free radical generator that can destroy the liver and kidneys
if enough is ingested. Death isn't instant but it can happen in a few days if
enough is ingested and lipoic acid is not used to decrease the free radical
damage and save some liver and kidney function.
Cooking mushrooms destroys some of the hydralazine but the really poisonous
ones still have enough left to cause considerable liver and kidney damage.
Lipoic acid should not be able to stop the red blood cell destruction of
muscarine so it probably would not work as an antidote for the mushrooms that
you mentioned that have this particular chemical. Isn't muscarine the poison
that is used to tip arrows for a better chance of killing an animal (or bird)
hit with the arrow?
I've known about the NRC report for quite some time and I still eat mushrooms
but I usually cook them now (no more mushrooms in my salad).
This report has always bothered me because some mushrooms have known medicinal
value.
I can't imagine how worms and flies could be immune to a free radical
generator. But for a red blood cell lytic agent, it may only work against
animals. Some of the snake venom toxins do the same thing (rupture red blood
cells).
Marty B, "You are what you eat."
Oz
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>In the UK "organic" is a legally protected food label which cannot be
>applied to foods unless, among other things, they have passed tests
>which show them to have *very* much lower pesticide levels than are
>permitted, and regularly occur, in non-organic foods.
Incorrect. Organic merely means the supplier complies with the
regulations of one of the organic rgistration bodies. There is no
testing for pesticides involved. Since the usual level of pesticide
residue in non-organic food is that it is undetectable, even your latter
statement is of doubtful accuracy.
--
Oz
Oz
<con...@imagic.com.au> writes
>Be careful with extrapolation. Have a look at the OP insecticide
>chlorfenvinfos which is used for flea control on dogs. The LD50
>for dogs is around 10,000 mg/kg. For rats about 50 mg/kg. Dogs
>apparently have an additional biochemical mechanism that detoxes
>it rapidly.
Since we are considering the MOST suceptible mammal to assess the risk
and then adding safety margins on top this suggests that in many cases
the safety margin may be very very large indeed.
>There has been an unfortunate death of a child in Australia
>because a vet supplied this insecticide for home use and the
>child used it unprotected to wash the dog. Our toxic response is
>clearly at the rodent end of the spectrum -- or worse.
You cannot judge that from the example. What dose did the child get?
Please remember that malathion is regularly used for nit control in
children. I have never heard of a problem here.
--
Oz
Torsten Brinch
><..>The natural chemicals are far more potent than the man-made
>chemicals in causing cancer in rodents.
That is not correct, Martin. There is no such relationship between the
origin of the chemical and its rodent carcinogenic potency. Here is a
list of rodent carcinogens ordered by increasing rodent (mice/rat)
TD50, toxic endpoint carcinogenesis (Source: Ames)
Compound name TD50mg/kg/day
TCDD 0.000023
Aflatoxin 0.0032
Diethylnitrosamine 0.0237
Dimethylnitrosamine 0.124
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 0.679
Ethylene dibromide 1.52
PCBs 1.74
IQ 1.89
MeIQx 1.99
Formaldehyde 2.19
UDMH 3.96
PhIP 4.29
Toxaphene 5.57
Ethylene thiourea 7.9
DDT 12.3
DDE 12.5
Coumarin 13.9
Clofibrate 169
Phenobarbital 6.09
1.3-Butadiene 13.9
Carbaryl 14.1
Urethane 16.9
Lindane 30.7
8-Methoxypsoralen 32.4
Dicofol 32.9
Bromodichloromethane 47.7
Safrole 51.3
Estragole 51.8
PCNB 71.1
Benzene 77.5
Hydroquinone 82.8
Chloroform 90.3
Chlorobenzilate 93.9
Allyl isothiocyanate 96
Tetrachloroethylene 101
Catechol 118
Aniline 194
Furfural 197
d-Limonene 204
Glutamyl-p-hydrazino-benzoate 277
Caffeic acid 297
p-Hydrazinobenzoate 454
[alpha]]-Methylbenzylalcohol 458
Methylene chloride 724
BHA 745
Chlorothalonil 828
Saccharin 2140
Folpet 2280
Captan 2690
Ethyl alcohol 9110
A.bisporus Mixture of hydrazines 20,300
Torsten Brinch
><..>Odds have also been developed for some of the natural chemicals
>that plants produce that also cause cancer in rodents, these odds are
>much better than 1 in a million.
IARC is the international organisation which classifies agents
for human carcinogenic properties. Here is a complete list
of agents which IARC has classified in group 1 (carcinogenic
to humans), group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans, and
group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans. This list does not
support the thought that natural chemical that plants produce
have a significant role in causing cancer in humans.
Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans (75)
Agents and groups of agents
Aflatoxins, naturally occurring [1402-68-2] (Vol. 56; 1993)
4-Aminobiphenyl [92-67-1] (Vol. 1, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Arsenic [7440-38-2] and arsenic compounds (Vol. 23, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: This evaluation applies to the group of compounds as a whole and not
necessarily to all individual compounds within the group)
Asbestos [1332-21-4] (Vol. 14, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Azathioprine [446-86-6] (Vol. 26, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Benzene [71-43-2] (Vol. 29, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Benzidine [92-87-5] (Vol. 29, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Beryllium [7440-41-7] and beryllium compounds (Vol. 58; 1993)
(NB: Evaluated as a group)
N,N-Bis(2-chloroethyl)-2-naphthylamine (Chlornaphazine) [494-03-1] (Vol. 4,
Suppl. 7; 1987)
Bis(chloromethyl)ether [542-88-1] and chloromethyl methyl ether [107-30-2]
(technical-grade)
(Vol. 4, Suppl. 7; 1987)
1,4-Butanediol dimethanesulfonate (Busulphan; Myleran) [55-98-1] (Vol. 4,
Suppl. 7; 1987) Cadmium [7440-43-9] and cadmium compounds (Vol. 58; 1993)
(NB: Evaluated as a group)
Chlorambucil [305-03-3] (Vol. 26, Suppl. 7; 1987)
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (Methyl-CCNU;
Semustine) [13909-09-6] (Suppl. 7; 1987)
Chromium[VI] compounds (Vol. 49; 1990)
(NB: Evaluated as a group)
Ciclosporin [79217-60-0] (Vol. 50; 1990)
Cyclophosphamide [50-18-0] [6055-19-2] (Vol. 26, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Diethylstilboestrol [56-53-1] (Vol. 21, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Epstein-Barr virus (Vol. 70; 1997)
Erionite [66733-21-9] (Vol. 42, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Ethylene oxide [75-21-8] (Vol. 60; 1994)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2A to 1 with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Helicobacter pylori (infection with) (Vol. 61; 1994)
Hepatitis B virus (chronic infection with) (Vol. 59; 1994)
Hepatitis C virus (chronic infection with) (Vol. 59; 1994)
Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (infection with) (Vol. 67; 1996)
Human papillomavirus type 16 (Vol. 64; 1995)
Human papillomavirus type 18 (Vol. 64; 1995)
Human T-cell lymphotropic virus type I (Vol. 67; 1996)
Melphalan [148-82-3] (Vol. 9, Suppl. 7; 1987)
8-Methoxypsoralen (Methoxsalen) [298-81-7] plus ultraviolet A radiation
(Vol. 24, Suppl. 7; 1987)
MOPP and other combined chemotherapy including alkylating agents (Suppl. 7;
1987)
Mustard gas (Sulfur mustard) [505-60-2] (Vol. 9, Suppl. 7; 1987)
2-Naphthylamine [91-59-8] (Vol. 4, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Nickel compounds (Vol. 49; 1990)
(NB: Evaluated as a group)
Oestrogen therapy, postmenopausal (Vol. 72; 1999)
Oestrogens, nonsteroidal (Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: This evaluation applies to the group of compounds as a whole and not
necessarily to all individual compounds within the group)
Oestrogens, steroidal (Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: This evaluation applies to the group of compounds as a whole and not
necessarily to all individual compounds within the group)
Opisthorchis viverrini (infection with) (Vol. 61; 1994)
Oral contraceptives, combined (Vol. 72; 1999)
(NB: There is also conclusive evidence that these agents have a protective
effect against cancers of the ovary and endometrium)
Oral contraceptives, sequential (Suppl. 7; 1987)
Radon [10043-92-2] and its decay products (Vol. 43; 1988)
Schistosoma haematobium (infection with) (Vol. 61; 1994)
Silica [14808-60-7], crystalline (inhaled in the form of quartz or
cristobalite from occupational sources) (Vol. 68; 1997)
Solar radiation (Vol. 55; 1992)
Talc containing asbestiform fibres (Vol. 42, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Tamoxifen [10540-29-1] (Vol. 66; 1996)
(NB: There is also conclusive evidence that this agent (tamoxifen) reduces
the risk of contralateral breast cancer)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin [1746-01-6] (Vol. 69; 1997)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2A to 1 with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Thiotepa [52-24-4] (Vol. 50; 1990)
Treosulfan [299-75-2] (Vol. 26, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Vinyl chloride [75-01-4] (Vol. 19, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Mixtures
Alcoholic beverages (Vol. 44; 1988)
Analgesic mixtures containing phenacetin (Suppl. 7; 1987)
Betel quid with tobacco (Vol. 37, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Coal-tar pitches [65996-93-2] (Vol. 35, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Coal-tars [8007-45-2] (Vol. 35, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Mineral oils, untreated and mildly treated (Vol. 33, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Salted fish (Chinese-style) (Vol. 56; 1993)
Shale-oils [68308-34-9] (Vol. 35, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Soots (Vol. 35, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Tobacco products, smokeless (Vol. 37, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Tobacco smoke (Vol. 38, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Wood dust (Vol. 62; 1995)
Exposure circumstances
Aluminium production (Vol. 34, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Auramine, manufacture of (Suppl. 7; 1987)
Boot and shoe manufacture and repair (Vol. 25, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Coal gasification (Vol. 34, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Coke production (Vol. 34, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Furniture and cabinet making (Vol. 25, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Haematite mining (underground) with exposure to radon (Vol. 1, Suppl. 7;
1987)
Iron and steel founding (Vol. 34, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Isopropanol manufacture (strong-acid process) (Suppl. 7; 1987)
Magenta, manufacture of (Vol. 57; 1993)
Painter (occupational exposure as a) (Vol. 47; 1989)
Rubber industry (Vol. 28, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Strong-inorganic-acid mists containing sulfuric acid (occupational exposure
to) (Vol. 54; 1992)
Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans (59)
Agents and groups of agents
Acrylamide [79-06-1] (Vol. 60; 1994)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Adriamycin [23214-92-8] (Vol. 10, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Androgenic (anabolic) steroids (Suppl. 7; 1987)
Azacitidine [320-67-2] (Vol. 50; 1990)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Benz[a]anthracene [56-55-3] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Benzidine-based dyes (Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Benzo[a]pyrene [50-32-8] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Bischloroethyl nitrosourea (BCNU) [154-93-8] (Vol. 26, Suppl. 7; 1987)
1,3-Butadiene [106-99-0] (Vol. 71; 1999)
Captafol [2425-06-1] (Vol. 53; 1991)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Chloramphenicol [56-75-7] (Vol. 50; 1990)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
a-Chlorinated toluenes (benzal chloride [98-87-3], benzotrichloride
[98-07-7], benzyl chloride [100-44-7]) and benzoyl chloride [98-88-4]
(combined exposures) (Vol. 29, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) [13010-47-4] (Vol. 26,
Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
para-Chloro-ortho-toluidine [95-69-2] and its strong acid salts (Vol. 48;
1990)
(NB: Evaluated as a group)
Chlorozotocin [54749-90-5] (Vol. 50; 1990)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Cisplatin [15663-27-1] (Vol. 26, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Clonorchis sinensis (infection with) (Vol. 61; 1994)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene [53-70-3] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Diethyl sulfate [64-67-5] (Vol. 54, Vol. 71; 1999)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride [79-44-7] (Vol. 12, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
1,2-Dimethylhydrazine [540-73-8] (Vol. 4, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Dimethyl sulfate [77-78-1] (Vol. 4, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Epichlorohydrin [106-89-8] (Vol. 11, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Ethylene dibromide [106-93-4] (Vol. 15, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
N-Ethyl-N-nitrosourea [759-73-9] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Formaldehyde [50-00-0] (Vol. 62; 1995)
Human papillomavirus type 31 (Vol. 64; 1995)
Human papillomavirus type 33 (Vol. 64; 1995)
IQ (2-Amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline) [76180-96-6] (Vol. 56; 1993)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Kaposi's sarcoma herpesvirus/human herpesvirus 8 (Vol. 70; 1997)
5-Methoxypsoralen [484-20-8] (Vol. 40, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
4,4´-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MOCA) [101-14-4] (Vol. 57; 1993)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Methyl methanesulfonate [66-27-3] (Vol. 7, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
N-Methyl-N´-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG) [70-25-7] (Vol. 4, Suppl. 7;
1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
N-Methyl-N-nitrosourea [684-93-5] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Nitrogen mustard [51-75-2] (Vol. 9, Suppl. 7; 1987)
N-Nitrosodiethylamine [55-18-5] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
N-Nitrosodimethylamine [62-75-9] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Phenacetin [62-44-2] (Vol. 24, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Procarbazine hydrochloride [366-70-1] (Vol. 26, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Styrene-7,8-oxide [96-09-3] (Vol. 60; 1994)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Tetrachloroethylene [127-18-4] (Vol. 63; 1995)
Trichloroethylene [79-01-6] (Vol. 63; 1995)
1,2,3-Trichloropropane [96-18-4] (Vol. 63; 1995)
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate [126-72-7] (Vol. 20, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71;
1999)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Ultraviolet radiation A (Vol. 55; 1992)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Ultraviolet radiation B (Vol. 55; 1992)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Ultraviolet radiation C (Vol. 55; 1992)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Vinyl bromide [593-60-2] (Vol. 39, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 2B to 2A with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Vinyl fluoride [75-02-5] (Vol. 63; 1995)
Mixtures
Creosotes [8001-58-9] (Vol. 35, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Diesel engine exhaust (Vol. 46; 1989)
Hot mate (Vol. 51; 1991)
Non-arsenical insecticides (occupational exposures in spraying and
application of) (Vol. 53; 1991)
Polychlorinated biphenyls [1336-36-3] (Vol. 18, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Exposure circumstances
Art glass, glass containers and pressed ware (manufacture of) (Vol. 58;
1993)
Hairdresser or barber (occupational exposure as a) (Vol. 57; 1993)
Petroleum refining (occupational exposures in) (Vol. 45; 1989)
Sunlamps and sunbeds (use of) (Vol. 55; 1992)
Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans (228)
Agents and groups of agents
A-a-C (2-Amino-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole) [26148-68-5] (Vol. 40, Suppl. 7;
1987)
Acetaldehyde [75-07-0] (Vol. 36, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Acetamide [60-35-5] (Vol. 7, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Acrylonitrile [107-13-1] (Vol. 71; 1999)
AF-2 [2-(2-Furyl)-3-(5-nitro-2-furyl)acrylamide] [3688-53-7] (Vol. 31,
Suppl. 7; 1987)
Aflatoxin M1 [6795-23-9] (Vol. 56; 1993)
para-Aminoazobenzene [60-09-3] (Vol. 8, Suppl. 7; 1987)
ortho-Aminoazotoluene [97-56-3] (Vol. 8, Suppl. 7; 1987)
2-Amino-5-(5-nitro-2-furyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazole [712-68-5] (Vol. 7, Suppl. 7;
1987)
Amitrole [61-82-5] (Vol. 41, Suppl. 7; 1987)
ortho-Anisidine [90-04-0] (Vol. 73; 1999)
Antimony trioxide [1309-64-4] (Vol. 47; 1989)
Aramite® [140-57-8] (Vol. 5, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Auramine [492-80-8] (technical-grade) (Vol. 1, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Azaserine [115-02-6] (Vol. 10, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Aziridine [151-56-4] (Vol. 9, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 3 to 2B with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Benzo[b]fluoranthene [205-99-2] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Benzo[j]fluoranthene [205-82-3] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Benzo[k]fluoranthene [207-08-9] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Benzofuran [271-89-6] (Vol. 63; 1995)
Benzyl violet 4B [1694-09-3] (Vol. 16, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Bleomycins [11056-06-7] (Vol. 26, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 3 to 2B with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Bracken fern (Vol. 40, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Bromodichloromethane [75-27-4] (Vol. 52, Vol. 71; 1999)
Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) [25013-16-5] (Vol. 40, Suppl. 7; 1987)
b-Butyrolactone [3068-88-0] (Vol. 11, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Caffeic acid [331-39-5] (Vol. 56; 1993)
Carbon black [1333-86-4] (Vol. 65; 1996)
Carbon tetrachloride [56-23-5] (Vol. 20, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Catechol [120-80-9] (Vol. 15, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Ceramic fibres (Vol. 43; 1988)
Chlordane [57-74-9] (Vol. 53; 1991)
Chlordecone (Kepone) [143-50-0] (Vol. 20, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Chlorendic acid [115-28-6] (Vol. 48; 1990)
para-Chloroaniline [106-47-8] (Vol. 57; 1993)
Chloroform [67-66-3] (Vol. 73; 1999)
1-Chloro-2-methylpropene [513-37-1] (Vol. 63; 1995)
Chlorophenoxy herbicides (Vol. 41, Suppl. 7; 1987)
4-Chloro-ortho-phenylenediamine [95-83-0] (Vol. 27, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Chloroprene [126-99-8] (Vol. 71; 1999)
Chlorothalonil [1897-45-6] (Vol. 73; 1999)
CI Acid Red 114 [6459-94-5] (Vol. 57; 1993)
CI Basic Red 9 [569-61-9] (Vol. 57; 1993)
CI Direct Blue 15 [2429-74-5] (Vol. 57; 1993)
Citrus Red No. 2 [6358-53-8] (Vol. 8, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Cobalt [7440-48-4] and cobalt compounds (Vol. 52; 1991)
(NB: Evaluated as a group)
para-Cresidine [120-71-8] (Vol. 27, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Cycasin [14901-08-7] (Vol. 10, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Dacarbazine [4342-03-4] (Vol. 26, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Dantron (Chrysazin; 1,8-Dihydroxyanthraquinone) [117-10-2] (Vol. 50; 1990)
Daunomycin [20830-81-3] (Vol. 10, Suppl. 7; 1987)
DDT [p,p'-DDT, 50-29-3] (Vol. 53; 1991)
N,N'-Diacetylbenzidine [613-35-4] (Vol. 16, Suppl. 7; 1987)
2,4-Diaminoanisole [615-05-4] (Vol. 27, Suppl. 7; 1987)
4,4'-Diaminodiphenyl ether [101-80-4] (Vol. 29, Suppl. 7; 1987)
2,4-Diaminotoluene [95-80-7] (Vol. 16, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Dibenz[a,h]acridine [226-36-8] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Dibenz[a,j]acridine [224-42-0] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole [194-59-2] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene [192-65-4] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene [189-64-0] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene [189-55-9] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Dibenzo[a,l]pyrene [191-30-0] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane [96-12-8] (Vol. 20, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
para-Dichlorobenzene [106-46-7] (Vol. 73; 1999)
(N.B. - Mechanistic data taken into account for making overall evaluation)
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine [91-94-1] (Vol. 29, Suppl. 7; 1987)
3,3'-Dichloro-4,4'-diaminodiphenyl ether [28434-86-8] (Vol. 16, Suppl. 7;
1987)
1,2-Dichloroethane [107-06-2] (Vol. 20, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride) [75-09-2] (Vol. 71; 1999)
1,3-Dichloropropene [542-75-6] (technical-grade) (Vol. 41, Suppl. 7, Vol.
71; 1999)
Dichlorvos [62-73-7] (Vol. 53; 1991)
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate [117-81-7] (Vol. 29, Suppl. 7; 1987)
1,2-Diethylhydrazine [1615-80-1] (Vol. 4, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Diglycidyl resorcinol ether [101-90-6] (Vol. 36, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Dihydrosafrole [94-58-6] (Vol. 10, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Diisopropyl sulfate [2973-10-6] (Vol. 54, Vol. 71; 1999)
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine (ortho-Dianisidine) [119-90-4] (Vol. 4, Suppl. 7;
1987)
para-Dimethylaminoazobenzene [60-11-7] (Vol. 8, Suppl. 7; 1987)
trans-2-[(Dimethylamino)methylimino]-5-[2-(5-nitro-2-furyl)-vinyl]-1,3,4-oxa
diazole [25962-77-0]
(Vol. 7, Suppl. 7; 1987)
2,6-Dimethylaniline (2,6-Xylidine) [87-62-7] (Vol. 57; 1993)
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine (ortho-Tolidine) [119-93-7] (Vol. 1, Suppl. 7; 1987)
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine [57-14-7] (Vol. 4, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
3,7-Dinitrofluoranthene [105735-71-5] (Vol. 65; 1996)
3,9-Dinitrofluoranthene [22506-53-2] (Vol. 65; 1996)
1,6-Dinitropyrene [42397-64-8] (Vol. 46; 1989)
1,8-Dinitropyrene [42397-65-9] (Vol. 46; 1989)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene [121-14-2] (Vol. 65; 1996)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene [606-20-2] (Vol. 65; 1996)
1,4-Dioxane [123-91-1] (Vol. 11, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Disperse Blue 1 [2475-45-8] (Vol. 48; 1990)
1,2-Epoxybutane [106-88-7] (Vol. 47, Vol. 71; 1999)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 3 to 2B with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Ethyl acrylate [140-88-5] (Vol. 39, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Ethylene thiourea [96-45-7] (Vol. 7, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Ethyl methanesulfonate [62-50-0] (Vol. 7, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Foreign bodies, implanted in tissues (Vol. 74; 1999)
Polymeric, prepared as thin smooth films (with the exception of
poly(glycolic acid))
Metallic, prepared as thin smooth films
Metallic cobalt, metallic nickel and an alloy powder containing 66-67%
nickel, 13-16% chromium and 7% iron
2-(2-Formylhydrazino)-4-(5-nitro-2-furyl)thiazole [3570-75-0] (Vol. 7,
Suppl. 7; 1987)
Furan [110-00-9] (Vol. 63; 1995)
Glasswool (Vol. 43; 1988)
Glu-P-1 (2-Amino-6-methyldipyrido[1,2-a:3',2'-d]imidazole) [67730-11-4]
(Vol. 40, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Glu-P-2 (2-Aminodipyrido[1,2-a:3',2'-d]imidazole) [67730-10-3] (Vol. 40,
Suppl. 7; 1987)
Glycidaldehyde [765-34-4] (Vol. 11, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Griseofulvin [126-07-8] (Vol. 10, Suppl. 7; 1987)
HC Blue No. 1 [2784-94-3] (Vol. 57; 1993)
Heptachlor [76-44-8] (Vol. 53; 1991)
Hexachlorobenzene [118-74-1] (Vol. 20, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Hexachloroethane [67-72-1] (Vol. 73; 1999)
Hexachlorocyclohexanes (Vol. 20, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Hexamethylphosphoramide [680-31-9] (Vol. 15, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Human immunodeficiency virus type 2 (infection with) (Vol. 67; 1996)
Human papillomaviruses: some types other than 16, 18, 31 and 33 (Vol. 64;
1995)
Hydrazine [302-01-2] (Vol. 4, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene [193-39-5] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Iron-dextran complex [9004-66-4] (Vol. 2, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Isoprene [78-79-5] (Vol. 60, Vol. 71; 1999)
Lasiocarpine [303-34-4] (Vol. 10, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Lead [7439-92-1] and lead compounds, inorganic (Vol. 23, Suppl. 7; 1987)
(NB: Evaluated as a group)
Magenta [632-99-5] (containing CI Basic Red 9) (Vol. 57; 1993)
MeA-a-C (2-Amino-3-methyl-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole) [68006-83-7] (Vol. 40,
Suppl. 7; 1987)
Medroxyprogesterone acetate [71-58-9] (Vol. 21, Suppl. 7; 1987)
MeIQ (2-Amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline) [77094-11-2] (Vol. 56;
1993)
MeIQx (2-Amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline) [77500-04-0] (Vol. 56;
1993)
Merphalan [531-76-0] (Vol. 9, Suppl. 7; 1987)
2-Methylaziridine (Propyleneimine) [75-55-8] (Vol. 9, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71;
1999)
Methylazoxymethanol acetate [592-62-1] (Vol. 10, Suppl. 7; 1987)
5-Methylchrysene [3697-24-3] (Vol. 32, Suppl. 7; 1987)
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-methylaniline) [838-88-0] (Vol. 4, Suppl. 7; 1987)
4,4'-Methylenedianiline [101-77-9] (Vol. 39, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Methylmercury compounds (Vol. 58; 1993)
(NB: Evaluated as a group)
2-Methyl-1-nitroanthraquinone [129-15-7] (uncertain purity) (Vol. 27, Suppl.
7; 1987)
N-Methyl-N-nitrosourethane [615-53-2] (Vol. 4, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Methylthiouracil [56-04-2] (Vol. 7, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Metronidazole [443-48-1] (Vol. 13, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Mirex [2385-85-5] (Vol. 20, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Mitomycin C [50-07-7] (Vol. 10, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Monocrotaline [315-22-0] (Vol. 10, Suppl. 7; 1987)
5-(Morpholinomethyl)-3-[(5-nitrofurfurylidene)amino]-2-oxazolidinone
[3795-88-8] (Vol. 7, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Nafenopin [3771-19-5] (Vol. 24, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Nickel, metallic [7440-02-0] and alloys (Vol. 49; 1990)
Niridazole [61-57-4] (Vol. 13, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Nitrilotriacetic acid [139-13-9] and its salts (Vol. 73; 1999)
(NB: Evaluated as a group)
5-Nitroacenaphthene [602-87-9] (Vol. 16, Suppl. 7; 1987)
2-Nitroanisole [91-23-6] (Vol. 65; 1996)
Nitrobenzene [98-95-3] (Vol. 65; 1996)
6-Nitrochrysene [7496-02-8] (Vol. 46; 1989)
Nitrofen [1836-75-5] (technical-grade) (Vol. 30, Suppl. 7; 1987)
2-Nitrofluorene [607-57-8] (Vol. 46; 1989)
1-[(5-Nitrofurfurylidene)amino]-2-imidazolidinone [555-84-0] (Vol. 7, Suppl.
7; 1987)
N-[4-(5-Nitro-2-furyl)-2-thiazolyl]acetamide [531-82-8] (Vol. 7, Suppl. 7;
1987)
Nitrogen mustard N-oxide [126-85-2] (Vol. 9, Suppl. 7; 1987)
2-Nitropropane [79-46-9] (Vol. 29, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
1-Nitropyrene [5522-43-0] (Vol. 46; 1989)
4-Nitropyrene [57835-92-4] (Vol. 46; 1989)
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine [924-16-3] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine [1116-54-7] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine [621-64-7] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
3-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)propionitrile [60153-49-3] (Vol. 37, Suppl. 7; 1987)
4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) [64091-91-4] (Vol.
37, Suppl. 7; 1987)
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine [10595-95-6] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine [4549-40-0] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
N-Nitrosomorpholine [59-89-2] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
N'-Nitrosonornicotine [16543-55-8] (Vol. 37, Suppl. 7; 1987)
N-Nitrosopiperidine [100-75-4] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine [930-55-2] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
N-Nitrososarcosine [13256-22-9] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Ochratoxin A [303-47-9] (Vol. 56; 1993)
Oestrogen-progestogen therapy, postmenopausal (Vol. 72; 1999)
Oil Orange SS [2646-17-5] (Vol. 8, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Oxazepam [604-75-1] (Vol. 66; 1996)
Palygorskite (attapulgite) [12174-11-7] (long fibres, > 5 micrometers) (Vol.
68; 1997)
Panfuran S [794-93-4] (containing dihydroxymethylfuratrizine)
(Vol. 24, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Phenazopyridine hydrochloride [136-40-3] (Vol. 24, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Phenobarbital [50-06-6] (Vol. 13, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Phenoxybenzamine hydrochloride [63-92-3] (Vol. 24, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Phenyl glycidyl ether [122-60-1] (Vol. 47, Vol. 71; 1999)
Phenytoin [57-41-0] (Vol. 66; 1996)
PhIP (2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine) [105650-23-5] (Vol.
56; 1993)
Polychlorophenols and their sodium salts (mixed exposures) (Vol. 41, Suppl.
7, Vol. 53, Vol. 71; 1999)
Ponceau MX [3761-53-3] (Vol. 8, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Ponceau 3R [3564-09-8] (Vol. 8, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Potassium bromate [7758-01-2] (Vol. 73; 1999)
Progestins (Suppl. 7; 1987)
Progestogen-only contraceptives (Vol. 72; 1999)
1,3-Propane sultone [1120-71-4] (Vol. 4, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
b-Propiolactone [57-57-8] (Vol. 4, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Propylene oxide [75-56-9] (Vol. 60; 1994)
Propylthiouracil [51-52-5] (Vol. 7, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Rockwool (Vol. 43; 1988)
Safrole [94-59-7] (Vol. 10, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Schistosoma japonicum (infection with) (Vol. 61; 1994)
Slagwool (Vol. 43; 1988)
Sodium ortho-phenylphenate [132-27-4] (Vol. 73; 1999)
Sterigmatocystin [10048-13-2] (Vol. 10, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Streptozotocin [18883-66-4] (Vol. 17, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Styrene [100-42-5] (Vol. 60; 1994)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 3 to 2B with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Sulfallate [95-06-7] (Vol. 30, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Tetrafluoroethylene [116-14-3] (Vol. 19, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
Tetranitromethane [509-14-8] (Vol. 65; 1996)
Thioacetamide [62-55-5] (Vol. 7, Suppl. 7; 1987)
4,4'-Thiodianiline [139-65-1] (Vol. 27, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Thiourea [62-56-6] (Vol. 7, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Toluene diisocyanates [26471-62-5] (Vol. 39, Suppl. 7, Vol. 71; 1999)
ortho-Toluidine [95-53-4] (Vol. 27, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Toxins derived from Fusarium moniliforme (Vol. 56; 1993)
Trichlormethine (Trimustine hydrochloride) [817-09-4] (Vol. 50; 1990)
Trp-P-1 (3-Amino-1,4-dimethyl-5H-pyrido[4,3-b]indole) [62450-06-0] (Vol. 31,
Suppl. 7; 1987)
Trp-P-2 (3-Amino-1-methyl-5H-pyrido[4,3-b]indole) [62450-07-1] (Vol. 31,
Suppl. 7; 1987)
Trypan blue [72-57-1] (Vol. 8, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Uracil mustard [66-75-1] (Vol. 9, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Urethane [51-79-6] (Vol. 7, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Vinyl acetate [108-05-4] (Vol. 63; 1995)
4-Vinylcyclohexene [100-40-3] (Vol. 60; 1994)
4-Vinylcyclohexene diepoxide [106-87-6] (Vol. 60; 1994)
Mixtures
Bitumens [8052-42-4], extracts of steam-refined and air-refined (Vol. 35,
Suppl. 7; 1987)
Carrageenan [9000-07-1], degraded (Vol. 31, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Chlorinated paraffins of average carbon chain length C12 and average degree
of chlorination approximately 60% (Vol. 48; 1990)
Coffee (urinary bladder) (Vol. 51; 1991)
(NB: There is some evidence of an inverse relationship between coffee
drinking and cancer of the large bowel; coffee drinking could not be
classified as to its carcinogenicity to other organs)
Diesel fuel, marine (Vol. 45; 1989)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 3 to 2B with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Engine exhaust, gasoline (Vol. 46; 1989)
Fuel oils, residual (heavy) (Vol. 45; 1989)
Gasoline (Vol. 45; 1989)
(NB: Overall evaluation upgraded from 3 to 2B with supporting evidence from
other data relevant to the evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms)
Pickled vegetables (traditional in Asia) (Vol. 56; 1993)
Polybrominated biphenyls [Firemaster BP-6, 59536-65-1] (Vol. 41, Suppl. 7;
1987)
Toxaphene (Polychlorinated camphenes) [8001-35-2] (Vol. 20, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Welding fumes (Vol. 49; 1990)
Exposure circumstances
Carpentry and joinery (Vol. 25, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Dry cleaning (occupational exposures in) (Vol. 63; 1995)
Printing processes (occupational exposures in) (Vol. 65; 1996)
Textile manufacturing industry (work in) (Vol. 48; 1990)
Harold Lindaberry
Torsten Brinch wrote:
> Martin Banschbach skrev i meddelelsen <87vags$aa...@news.cis.okstate.edu>...
>
> ><..>The natural chemicals are far more potent than the man-made
> >chemicals in causing cancer in rodents.
>
> That is not correct, Martin. There is no such relationship between the
> origin of the chemical and its rodent carcinogenic potency.
I agree that there probably no relationship between man made and all -
natural - Ma Nature ( or whatever you want to call it ) doesn't give a shit who
or what makes it. The real question is how much and how likely is one to get a
critical dose and for how long. Natural products are frequently are at higher
levels while man made products are IMO much less like to be ubiquitous. Natural
products such as aflatoxin and other naturally produced toxins solanine,
saffarole, nicotine, isocyanate glucosides. atropine, cocaine, strychnine,
botulina toxin, atropine etc.etc. are much more likely or certain to be
present in potentially toxic levels - many of the natural products do not
present a potential cancer problem however because the patient doesn't live
long enough ;-) Thus it would appear to me that the adage " too much of a good
thing can kill you " appears appropriate - Alcohol is a good case in point -
admittedly development of cancer is probably not the major cause of death
unless your liver and kidneys can take it long enough ;-)
Harold
Torsten Brinch
><..>there probably [is] no relationship between man made and all -
>natural - Ma Nature ( or whatever you want to call it ) doesn't give a shit
>who or what makes it. The real question is how much and how likely is
>one to get a critical dose and for how long.
See my other post with the content of IARC carcinogenicity classified agents
lists.
IARC Group 1 is defined "The agent (mixture) is carcinogenic to humans.
The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are carcinogenic to
humans."
Inclusion in group 1 has therefore necessarily involved a scientific
evaluation that a critical and sufficient dose is likely to be obtained
in the normal exposure circumstances to the agent included.
There are 70 odd different agents/mixtures/exposure circumstances
which have been classified in IARC group 1. Only one of these can
reasonably be said to involve exposure to a natural plant
produced component: 8-Methoxypsoralen (when exposure to this
compound is followed by exposure to ultraviolet A radiation)
Harold Lindaberry
Torsten Brinch wrote:
Not aflatoxin ? Hmm
I wish they'd take safarole off of the banned list - I liked old fashioned root
beer
Harold
Martin Banschbach PhD
My list has aflatoxin at the top. The National Research Council also considers
mushroom hydrazines to be just as potent as the aflatoxins. However, the list
you have puts these compounds after ethanol. These are the only two natural
chemicals that NRC has developed estimates of cancer incidence in humans caused
by ingestion of these two natural compounds. I'm beginning to wonder if the
NRC report wasn't using mutagenicity data. Just because a chemical is a very
good mutagen does not mean that it will also be a very good rodent carcinogen
(Bruce Ames has made this point many times but some people don't seem to get
it, though you would think that the NRC would). The NRC report came out in the
late 80's and carcinogenicity data for the mushroom hydrazines may not have
been available then.
Nitrosamines are also natural chemicals Torsten. They are suspected to play a
major factor in human stomach cancer and some foods have them preformed after
food is cooked but most are formed in the stomach after ingestion of plant
foods that are high in nitrates or nitrites. Animal foods like bacon also have
high amounts of nitrites.
Plant nitrates and nitrities are not part of the plant insect defense system as
far as I can tell.
Safrole was another natural plant chemical that the NRC report covered. And
this chemical is a natural pesticide. The NRC never developed estimates of
human cancer incidence for this natural chemical because it was pulled from the
approved food additives list. Now the only way you can get it is by eating
sassafras, mace or nutmeg.
Your list has d-limonene. Again, I am extremely gratefull for your taking the
time to post this list, it's much better than what I have. This is exactly why
I wanted to come back to Sci.Med.Nutrition.
d-limonene has been one of the most potent plant chemicals in preventing cancer
in rodents but that effect is dose dependent. Cherries are the major (only
source I could find) for this plant chemical.
Having d-limonene on the list seems to indicate that cherries should not be
part of the human diet but that would be an incorrect assumption. You would
have to eat large amounts of cherries on a regular basis to increase your risk
of cancer, having them in your diet on an occassional basis should provide
significant protect from cancer.
I got into this thread because I don't agree with the blanket statement that
organic produce is much better than conventionally grown produce. The
pesticide scare gave rise to the Organic produce industry and they still play
on that fear. Fear of cholesterol lead to the development of margarine and we
all know the margarine story.
Fear is an extremely good motivator. Americans should eat more plant food but
if Bruce Ames were to state that natural pesticides pose more of a threat to
human health than the man-made pesticides do, years of work to improve the
American diet would go down the drain.
This thread is an extremely emotional one. I have used Organic technigues to
grow some food for my family (but once I started having problems with my son,
my farming days were over).
When you grow your own produce, you are out there every day protecting your
food from the bad guys. Marigolds, onions and garlic will help keep some
insects away from what you want to eat. I have actually bought lady bugs to
put in my plot.
A commercial grower does not have the time or the money to do what most of us
Organic farmers do. If the crop is not protected from insects, the plants will
try to defend themselves. Their defense may increase the daily cancer cell
count in the human body.
But there are plant foods that should help protect us from this. I want to
develop a list of all the known plant chemicals that might cause a problem in
humans and a list of all the plant chemicals that may protect us from cancer.
As Ron points out, balance is the key to human health.
It's the same way with plant chemicals, a good balance will keep us healthy but
if we have too many of the potentially bad plant foods in our diet and not
enough of the potentially good plant foods in our diet, our health (cancer cell
count) could be affected.
I hope that this makes sense to you Torsten. Again, thank you very much for
posting that list. I hoped that if I stayed in this thread long enough,
someone would post something that would be a goldmine for me. You just did.
Martin Banschbach PhD
I thanked you before you showed me the really good stuff. I'm like a kid on
Christmas morning, my cup runs over with the joy of new discoveries.
Now I have sulfur to cover and plant chemicals to cover. Both play major roles
in human health. I hope that I can do them justice when I post my reviews of
these two areas. I think that I will use these two areas for the web site that
I consult for but I will post this material here first.
We can always disagree with each other. I always hope that when I get into
these emotional threads something really good will come my way.
Like I said before, I don't mind being wrong if I can learn something. I am
really learning from this thread, thank you again Torsten.
Tracy Aquilla
>
> Chris Malcolm wrote in message <
>
> >applied to foods unless, among other things, they have passed tests
> >which show them to have *very* much lower pesticide levels than are
> >permitted, and regularly occur, in non-organic foods.
>
> what you have said is that food cannot be labelled organic unless it has
> been tested. However what you mean is that the food is produced under a
> system which has passed tests to show they have lower pesticide levels.
> Every individual consignment of food isn't tested. Similarly the tests done
> are only for certain pesticides.
Just to clarify, in particular regard to organic produce, under the EU
regulations, there is no maximum level of allowed pesticide residues
stated in the regulations and no requirement for any residue testing.
Tracy
Torsten Brinch
>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> There are 70 odd different agents/mixtures/exposure circumstances
>> which have been classified in IARC group 1. Only one of these can
>> reasonably be said to involve exposure to a natural plant
>> produced component: 8-Methoxypsoralen (when exposure to this
>> compound is followed by exposure to ultraviolet A radiation)
> Not aflatoxin ? Hmm
Aflatoxin is not a natural plant produced component, Harold, it is
produced by a fungus, which I am sure you know. Aflatoxin is of
course classified by the IARC as a group 1 chemical (Carcinogenic in
humans).
> I wish they'd take safarole off of the banned list - I liked old fashioned
>root beer
Make your own :-)
The natural plant produced chemicals saffrole and dihydrosaffrole are
classified as IARC group 2B agents (Possibly carcinogenic in humans).
The human made group of mixtures Alcoholic beverages is classified
as IARC group 1(Carcinogenic in humans).
Torsten Brinch
><..>under the EU
>regulations, there is no maximum level of allowed pesticide residues
>stated in the regulations and no requirement for any residue testing.
Come on, Tracy. Of course there is. Organic food comes under
exactly the same EU regulations on allowed pesticide residues
in food and residue testing, as any other food.
Tracy Aquilla
> Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <38A2F46E...@bpmlegal.com>...
> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
> >[snip]
> >Recall that I did not assert that natural
> >carcinogens are necessarily worrisome, rather, it is simply that if
> >there is anything worth worrying about, it is not the minuscule residues
>
> Indeed. But as I read you, you were trying to make the point
> that natural carcinogens appear to pose a health risk of significantly
> greater magnitude.
Well, the fact that they are present in food at concentrations thousands
of
times higher than the residues of synthetic pesticides makes such a
conclusion reasonable. But of course, the point was rather that the risk
from residues of synthetic pesticides is not significant when one
considers the levels of natural carcinogens in food.
> I infer that you must be thinking of a health risk
> from ingesting natural rodent carcinogens in fruits and vegetables.
On what basis would you make such a conclusion? Are fruits and
vegetables the only foods typically found in the human diet? Are coffee
and alcoholic beverages, such as beer and wine, generally considered to
be a fruit or a vegetable? How about salt and pepper?
> But Ames has made the point several times, that eating fruits and
> vegetables appears to be protective against cancer, and thus
> not a risk factor at all.
When you try to read between the lines, Torsten, you obscure the words
you should be reading. Not all natural carcinogens in the human diet are
derived from what most people would call fruits and vegetables. Many
are present in herbs, spices, and beverages, such as coffee, which I do
not believe anyone touts as being protective against cancer.
[snip]
> >> <..> Ames et al do not advocate 'further investigating the
> >> effects of natural pesticides'. That must be your own brain child, Tracy.
>
> >From the text of the Senate testimony:
> >"Without additional data on mechanism of carcinogenesis for each
> >chemical, the interpretation of a positive result in a rodent bioassay
> >is highly uncertain."
>
> ><..>So apparently, Dr. Ames believes that society would be served
> >by further research into the mechanism for each of the natural
> >carcinogens.
>
> Better read what you quote in stead of dreaming up something.
> Dr. Ames simply expresses his judgement that a positive
> result in a rodent bioassay cannot be given any precise
> interpretation without additional data on mechanism of
> carcinogenicity.
OK, so you don't interpret the statement to indicate that more research
would be beneficial. Fine with me if you want to play that silly game. I
accept your opinion, for what it is worth.
> >Of course, if Ames did not advocate research on natural
> >pesticides, he probably would not be doing any.
>
> Well, is it actually fair to say that Ames is doing original research
> on natural pesticides?
Since it is true, yes it is fair to say. Sometimes, Torsten, you are
just full of it.
Ames, B.N., M. Profet, and L.S. Gold, Dietary pesticides (99.99% all
natural). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1990. 87: p. 7777-7781.
Ames, B.N., M. Profet, and L.S. Gold, Nature's chemicals and synthetic
chemicals: Comparative toxicology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1990. 87:
p. 7782-7786.
[snip]
> >> >See publications by Gribble et al. demonstrating the vast abundance of
> >> >natural endocrine disrupters. Synthetic compounds are minor in
> >> >comparison.
>
> >> I am not aware of any work Gribble has done within the field of
> >> endocrine disrupters?
>
> >Organochlorine compounds are not known or suspected to be endocrine
> >disrupters?<..>
>
> No. Mind you, very few generalizations about organochlorine compounds
> are true. This is a fact that you, Gribble and many others should try to
> learn, IMO.
I am well aware of that fact, and that some organochlorine compounds are
known or suspected endocrine disrupters. Your feigned ignorance to
provoke a digression was not necessary, as we have been through this
before. The fact that not all organochlorine compounds are endocrine
disrupters does not change the fact that natural organochlorine
compounds and natural endocrine disrupters (i.e. non organohalogens)
appear to be far more abundant than synthetic compounds of this nature.
But you already knew that.
To indulge Torsten, I hereby retract any statements I have made
referring to the published work of Gordon Gribble.
Tracy
Tracy Aquilla
>
> Seriously, why don't you answer my original question.
Which was:
>>I've been eating organic produce for a few years now because I
>>had read that not only is it healthier and safer because you're not
>>ingesting pesticides, but it's healthier because it's suppose to have
>>larger amounts of vitamins and minerals.
Neither statement is supported by the available data. There is no
factual basis to conclude that organically grown foods are safer or more
nutritious than their non-organically grown counterparts.
[snip]
>>The show went on and on and basically concluded that
>>organic produce has *no more* nutritional value than non organic.
Essentially correct, since there is no evidence to the contrary.
>>Furthermore, they pointed out that organic 'pre washed' salad mixes have
>>greater quantities of bacteria in them than the non organic 'pre
>>washed.'
Maybe so, but I have seen no convincing evidence to support such a
conclusion.
[snip]
>>my point to this whole post is
>>what is the truth here? Whom am I suppose to believe?
That is a difficult question to answer. You basically have to weigh the
evidence and the sources and decide for yourself.
Tracy
Tracy Aquilla
[snip]
> thing can kill you " appears appropriate - Alcohol is a good case in point -
> admittedly development of cancer is probably not the major cause of death
> unless your liver and kidneys can take it long enough ;-)
Beer and coffee are probably the two most obvious components, typical in
the diet of many adult humans, that pose a significant risk of cancer.
These products are loaded with natural carcinogens far in excess of the
residues of synthetic pesticides in one's entire diet.
I believe we have beaten this horse to death by now.
Tracy
Tracy Aquilla
> Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <38A42BC9...@bpmlegal.com>...
>
> ><..>under the EU
> >regulations, there is no maximum level of allowed pesticide residues
> >stated in the regulations and no requirement for any residue testing.
>
> Come on, Tracy. Of course there is. Organic food comes under
> exactly the same EU regulations on allowed pesticide residues
> in food and residue testing, as any other food.
Yes, but the regulations specific for production of organic foods do not
state any additional tolerance or testing requirement, as someone
previously suggested. I note you did not bother to correct that error.
Shame on you.
Tracy
Harold Lindaberry
Torsten Brinch wrote:
> Harold Lindaberry skrev i meddelelsen <38A4177B...@epix.net>...
>
> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
> >> There are 70 odd different agents/mixtures/exposure circumstances
> >> which have been classified in IARC group 1. Only one of these can
> >> reasonably be said to involve exposure to a natural plant
> >> produced component: 8-Methoxypsoralen (when exposure to this
> >> compound is followed by exposure to ultraviolet A radiation)
>
> > Not aflatoxin ? Hmm
>
> Aflatoxin is not a natural plant produced component, Harold, it is
> produced by a fungus, which I am sure you know.
Yes and the last figures I saw was in I believe in N. Carolina alone 30% of
the corn crop was infected regardless of whether it was organic in general - a
large portion may be contaminated sometimes less sometimes more and it's just
not just corn but peanuts, rice, wheat, cotton, rice and the list goes on and
on, depending on weather and or storage conditions or both. so IMO whether
manmade or natural toxins represent the greatest potential hazard is a moot
question IMO nature wins hands down. WHAT IS IS. and that just regarding
aflatoxin alone when one considers all the other natural toxins the scale really
tips off scale.
Harold.
> Aflatoxin is of
> course classified by the IARC as a group 1 chemical (Carcinogenic in
> humans).
>
> > I wish they'd take safarole off of the banned list - I liked old fashioned
> >root beer
>
> Make your own :-)
> The natural plant produced chemicals saffrole and dihydrosaffrole are
> classified as IARC group 2B agents (Possibly carcinogenic in humans).
> The human made group of mixtures Alcoholic beverages is classified
> as IARC group 1(Carcinogenic in humans).
>
Torsten Brinch
><..> Not all natural carcinogens in the human diet are
>derived from what most people would call fruits and vegetables. Many
>are present in herbs, spices, and beverages, such as coffee, which I do
>not believe anyone touts as being protective against cancer.
Could I ask you to define 'natural carcinogen', please.
<..>
>><..> is it actually fair to say that Ames is doing original research
>> on natural pesticides?
>Since it is true, yes it is fair to say. Sometimes, Torsten, you are
>just full of it.
>Ames, B.N., M. Profet, and L.S. Gold, Dietary pesticides (99.99% all
>natural). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1990. 87: p. 7777-7781.
>Ames, B.N., M. Profet, and L.S. Gold, Nature's chemicals and synthetic
>chemicals: Comparative toxicology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1990. 87:
>p. 7782-7786.
Jeez. You call these articles original research on natural pesticides!
"The toxicology of synthetic chemicals is compared to that of natural
chemicals," as Ames et. al presents their work in the very first
statement of the abstract of the last article you mention -- which
is sufficient to let the non-biased reader know that the rest
of the article will be, toxicologically speaking, utter garbage.
While you, Tracy, call it 'research'. Hm.
Tracy Aquilla
> Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <38A42E8C...@bpmlegal.com>...
>
> ><..> Not all natural carcinogens in the human diet are
> >derived from what most people would call fruits and vegetables. Many
> >are present in herbs, spices, and beverages, such as coffee, which I do
> >not believe anyone touts as being protective against cancer.
>
> Could I ask you to define 'natural carcinogen', please.
You could, I suppose, but I defer. If you cannot understand the term as
used in the articles cited, then perhaps you ought to ask the authors,
as apparently, you would not want me to speak on behalf of Bruce Ames.
> >><..> is it actually fair to say that Ames is doing original research
> >> on natural pesticides?
>
> >Since it is true, yes it is fair to say. Sometimes, Torsten, you are
> >just full of it.
>
> >Ames, B.N., M. Profet, and L.S. Gold, Dietary pesticides (99.99% all
> >natural). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1990. 87: p. 7777-7781.
>
> >Ames, B.N., M. Profet, and L.S. Gold, Nature's chemicals and synthetic
> >chemicals: Comparative toxicology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1990. 87:
> >p. 7782-7786.
>
> Jeez. You call these articles original research on natural pesticides!
> "The toxicology of synthetic chemicals is compared to that of natural
> chemicals," as Ames et. al presents their work in the very first
> statement of the abstract of the last article you mention -- which
> is sufficient to let the non-biased reader know that the rest
> of the article will be, toxicologically speaking, utter garbage.
> While you, Tracy, call it 'research'. Hm.
Call it whatever you like; I am not offended or swayed by your opinion.
BTW, are you non-biased? Do you not earn income by testing for synthetic
pesticides? It seems that if so, you would have an interest in
perpetuating pesticide paranoia.
Tracy
Torsten Brinch
To be fair, what Chris Malcolm wrote might, or might not be
understood as what you took it to mean. But Tracy, according to
my newsreader, you corrected whatever potential false implication
Chris might have meant to make (my interpretation is the same
as yours btw.) -- and indeed that you corrected it within appr
50 minutes from when Chris sent it.
With that kind of speedy reaction speed from your side, you
should not expect a flegmatic person like myself always to
be able to catch up with you.
Torsten Brinch
>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <38A42E8C...@bpmlegal.com>...
>>
>> ><..> Not all natural carcinogens in the human diet are
>> >derived from what most people would call fruits and vegetables. Many
>> >are present in herbs, spices, and beverages, such as coffee, which I do
>> >not believe anyone touts as being protective against cancer.
>>
>> Could I ask you to define 'natural carcinogen', please.
>You could, I suppose, but I defer. If you cannot understand the term as
>used in the articles cited, then perhaps you ought to ask the authors,
>as apparently, you would not want me to speak on behalf of Bruce Ames.
I have only seen Ames use the term 'natural carcinogens' once
and in the context it appeared it made sense -- he spoke generally,
theoretically asserting biological defense mechanism against
synthetic carcinogens might work equally against natural carcinogens.
But you asserted that many (specifiable) natural carcinogens
are present in a range of food items. So I came to doubt
whether what you really meant might not be what Ames carefully
expresses as 'rodent carcinogens'. That's why I asked you to
define your language use.
>> >><..> is it actually fair to say that Ames is doing original research
>> >> on natural pesticides?
>>
>> >Since it is true, yes it is fair to say. Sometimes, Torsten, you are
>> >just full of it.
>>
>> >Ames, B.N., M. Profet, and L.S. Gold, Dietary pesticides (99.99% all
>> >natural). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1990. 87: p. 7777-7781.
>>
>> >Ames, B.N., M. Profet, and L.S. Gold, Nature's chemicals and synthetic
>> >chemicals: Comparative toxicology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1990. 87:
>> >p. 7782-7786.
>>
>> Jeez. You call these articles original research on natural pesticides!
>> "The toxicology of synthetic chemicals is compared to that of natural
>> chemicals," as Ames et. al presents their work in the very first
>> statement of the abstract of the last article you mention -- which
>> is sufficient to let the non-biased reader know that the rest
>> of the article will be, toxicologically speaking, utter garbage.
>> While you, Tracy, call it 'research'. Hm.
>Call it whatever you like; I am not offended or swayed by your opinion.
Anyhow, if you had cared to, you would have seen that I was
actually making a valid criticism of an article.
>BTW, are you non-biased?
No, I do not think I am free of bias, but I think I am trying to be.
>Do you not earn income by testing for synthetic pesticides?
Huh? Not directly. I produce and deliver computer systems
modules which among other things are used for the data
management of the results of such testing. But is this really
relevant? Me thinks you are verging at the ad hominem.
>It seems that if so, you would have an interest in perpetuating
>pesticide paranoia.
Well, now you are indeed getting quite untidily ad hominem.
This is not pretty, my good Prince. And uncalled for.
I do not think you will be able to quote me for anything
which can reasonably be characterised as perpetuating
pesticide paranoia -- in this thread or any other thread.
Tracy Aquilla
> Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <38A43B95...@bpmlegal.com>...
> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
> are present in a range of food items.
Read the text of the articles cited. There a number of naturally
occurring compounds listed therein which are carcinogenic (I suppose you
will ask what that means now?).
> So I came to doubt
> whether what you really meant might not be what Ames carefully
> expresses as 'rodent carcinogens'.
So "rodent carcinogens" are not carcinogens? Since I referred to the
papers, why don't you just read them yourself, instead of asking for my
interpretation?
> >> >><..> is it actually fair to say that Ames is doing original research
> >> >> on natural pesticides?
> >>
> >> >Since it is true, yes it is fair to say. Sometimes, Torsten, you are
> >> >just full of it.
> >>
> >> >Ames, B.N., M. Profet, and L.S. Gold, Dietary pesticides (99.99% all
> >> >natural). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1990. 87: p. 7777-7781.
> >>
> >> >Ames, B.N., M. Profet, and L.S. Gold, Nature's chemicals and synthetic
> >> >chemicals: Comparative toxicology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1990. 87:
> >> >p. 7782-7786.
[snip]
> >> toxicologically speaking, utter garbage.
> >> While you, Tracy, call it 'research'. Hm.
>
> >Call it whatever you like; I am not offended or swayed by your opinion.
>
> Anyhow, if you had cared to, you would have seen that I was
> actually making a valid criticism of an article.
You referred to it as utter garbage, but I did not see any actual
criticism.
> >BTW, are you non-biased?
>
> No, I do not think I am free of bias, but I think I am trying to be.
>
> >Do you not earn income by testing for synthetic pesticides?
>
> Huh? Not directly. I produce and deliver computer systems
> modules which among other things are used for the data
> management of the results of such testing.
I was mistaken then; for some reason, I thought you perform chemical
analyses for pesticides.
> But is this really
> relevant? Me thinks you are verging at the ad hominem.
No, it is not really relevant, but I noticed you interjected reference
to 'the un-biased reader' in your comments and so I wondered if you
believe you are less biased than anyone else.
> >It seems that if so, you would have an interest in perpetuating
> >pesticide paranoia.
>
> Well, now you are indeed getting quite untidily ad hominem.
> This is not pretty, my good Prince. And uncalled for.
I will try to pull my foot out of my mouth. Apparently I was mistaken in
believing that you perform chemical analyses for pesticides. However,
since you do not, the comment does not apply to you (see above, re "if
so"). When it comes to matters of pesticides or organic foods, many
people are biased by their emotions and I do not believe that suggesting
one might not be free of bias is necessarily ugly, particularly since it
was you who first brought up the issue of bias. But it was my mistake to
believe that you you were an analytical chemist who performs chemical
analyses for pesticides, when in fact that is not the case, and I
apologize for suggesting that could provide a bias on your part.
Tracy
Your Not-So-Good Prince
Paul Rogers
in any forum on this subject. It sounds like desperation to me.
Strikes me as being a bit like 'new age' silliness from the other
end!
Paul R
Martin Banschbach <mba...@osu-com.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:87vags$aa...@news.cis.okstate.edu...
> If you let insects get at the plant (organic gardening), that
plant is
> really going to turn on it's synthesis of natural pesticides
and if we eat
> it we get a much higher dose of these natural pesticides. For
conventional
> farming produce, there is very little chance of getting the
man-made
> pesticides on the food that we buy or even the natural ones in
the food that
> we buy because we protected the plant from insect attack while
we grew it.
>
> If you really want to challenge the human system with natural
plant
> insecticides, buy organic that has not been protected from
insect attack.
>
> There are natural ways to keep insects away from the plant that
we want to
> eat (when I had time to grow my own produce, I used many of
them). But a
> commercial grower is unlikely to use these because they are
much more
> expensive than the man-made pesticides. If you do not keep
insects away
> from the plant, that plant is going to fight back and if we eat
it, we get
> caught in the cross fire (our daily cancer cell count goes up).
>
>
Torsten Brinch
>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <38A43B95...@bpmlegal.com>...
>> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> <..> I came to doubt
>> whether what you really meant might not be what Ames carefully
>> expresses as 'rodent carcinogens'.
>So "rodent carcinogens" are not carcinogens?
They might, or they might not, although this sounds weird.
For a convincing discussion of this, see Ames & Gold:
"Chemical Carcinogenesis: Too many rodent carcinogens"
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (1990)
>Since I referred to the
>papers, why don't you just read them yourself, instead of asking for my
>interpretation?
Because I thought you spoke for yourself, and not for Ames.
<..>
>> Anyhow, if you had cared to, you would have seen that I was
>> actually making a valid criticism of an article.
>You referred to it as utter garbage, but I did not see any actual
>criticism.
An article which professes to be a comparative study of
natural vs synthetic chemicals will quite expectedly be
a garbage article. That was what I said.
Why? Because knowledge that a chemical is natural or
synthethic has no bearing to knowledge of its toxicology,
that's why.
Oz
<con...@imagic.com.au> writes
>in any forum on this subject. It sounds like desperation to me.
>Strikes me as being a bit like 'new age' silliness from the other
>end!
what sounds silly?
1) That plants contain plenty of natural pesticides.
2) That they can increase the quantities of these pesticides when
attacked by pests.
Do you think either or both of these are silly?
--
Oz
Quentin Grady
>Martin this is one of the most extraordinary claims I have seen
>in any forum on this subject. It sounds like desperation to me.
>Strikes me as being a bit like 'new age' silliness from the other
>end!
Absolutely Paul,
Reminds me of a story I once read. Some agricultural research
scientists were detailed to breed some trees resistant to caterpillar
attack. They went to a stand of the trees and sure enough one tree
was badly chomped. The others had varying degrees of caterpillar
attack. So they wisely removed the badly chomped tree. No sense in
leaving it around to pollinate the other trees whose seeds they
intended to select.
Well next year imagine there surprise when in that stand of trees one
tree got badly chomped. Darn must have missed that one they thought.
Late onset, something like that. Well the only right thing to do was
give that the axe. Only the best trees would do.
One the third year something quite natural happened. You guessed it.
Just one tree was chomped. Now the natural thing happened in the
brains of these agricultural research scientist. Against their
better academic training a generalization began to take place. That's
how it is, three variations and the brain generalizes... except in
salesmen... once is enough for them and they think is should be for
every one else as well. But I digress.
So they talked to the entomology boys and gals. And the plant
physiology people. Now they said something very interesting. Making
poison is expensive. Plants that make poison when they don't need to
are less competitive against plants that don't make poison unless they
need too. For heaven's sake there is light, soil and water to compete
for if that isn't enough. So some plants have learnt to communicate.
Yeah right their little stomata open and closes rapidly people mistake
the sounds for wind in the willows. As if willows ever have digestive
troubles. Nah. Its those pheromone thingies again. When a leave is
chomped the tree produces signal compounds that drift in the wind and
the other trees produce toxin that give the caterpillar a dose of the
pit. Even leaves on the same tree may respond quickly enough to the
aromatherapy.
So boys and girls. Take care if you put a little dab of jasmine
behind your ear, your plants may stress out. <grin>
Above all remember this is only a story.
Its Omega-fict/Omega-fact ratio might not meet national guidelines.
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."
Dennis G.
>which have been classified in IARC group 1. Only one of these can
>reasonably be said to involve exposure to a natural plant
>produced component: 8-Methoxypsoralen (when exposure to this
>compound is followed by exposure to ultraviolet A radiation)
>
>--
>Best regards
>
>Torsten Brinch
>
Torsten;
Some other plant products are in Group 1 in the list you posted .
So why don't you include wood dust, betel, tobacco, as "...involve exposure
to natural plant produced component: ..."
Dennis
Torsten Brinch
>"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>>which have been classified in IARC group 1. Only one of these can
>>reasonably be said to involve exposure to a natural plant
>>produced component: 8-Methoxypsoralen (when exposure to this
>>compound is followed by exposure to ultraviolet A radiation)
>Some other plant products are in Group 1 in the list you posted .
>So why don't you include wood dust, betel, tobacco, as "...involve
>exposure to natural plant produced component: ..."
Hello Dennis,
Wood dust in the workplace and tobacco products (smokeless)
are indeed clasified as group 1 carcinogens. I did not include them
because I found them marginal to the discussion. Maybe I should
have mentioned them in a sidebar. Betel is not a group 1 carcinogen.
--
Best regards
Torsten Brinch
Email: ia...@inetdotuni2.dk
Paul Rogers
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+5LqDBA6...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> In article <UD_o4.1503$R37....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Paul Rogers
> <con...@imagic.com.au> writes
>
me.
> >Strikes me as being a bit like 'new age' silliness from the
other
> >end!
>
>
> 1) That plants contain plenty of natural pesticides.
> 2) That they can increase the quantities of these pesticides
when
> attacked by pests.
>
> Do you think either or both of these are silly?
Not necessarily, but Martin's decuction from this was that:
1. Organically grown produce has more natural pesticides because
it is attacked more my pests
2. That consequently this leads to more DNA damage and that our
cancer risk is increased
Can you provide me with references that would support either of
these absurdities? And don't give me the Ames stuff. Seen all
that. It does not support this mysticism at all.
Paul R
Oz
<con...@imagic.com.au> writes
>
>Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:+5LqDBA6...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <UD_o4.1503$R37....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>Paul Rogers
>> <con...@imagic.com.au> writes
>>
>> >in any forum on this subject. It sounds like desperation to
>me.
>> >Strikes me as being a bit like 'new age' silliness from the
>other
>> >end!
>>
>> what sounds silly?
>>
>> 1) That plants contain plenty of natural pesticides.
>> 2) That they can increase the quantities of these pesticides
>when
>> attacked by pests.
>>
>> Do you think either or both of these are silly?
>
>Not necessarily, but Martin's decuction from this was that:
>
>1. Organically grown produce has more natural pesticides because
>it is attacked more my pests
Not only is that plausible but has been shown to be the case that more
pests means higher concentrations of natural pesticides. I can't give
you refs for this but it's been discussed here and refs given. It's very
reasonable to assume that organic produce would be attacked by pests
more than conventional where pesticides must be used to control them.
>2. That consequently this leads to more DNA damage and that our
>cancer risk is increased
Ames has shown some natural pesticides are carcinogenic and are in
plants at quite high levels.
>Can you provide me with references that would support either of
>these absurdities? And don't give me the Ames stuff. Seen all
>that. It does not support this mysticism at all.
Eh? Try asking uncle al on sci.chem.
He will give you a bunch of refs for this.
--
Oz
David Kendra
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> writes:
>
> >Paul Rogers wrote:
>
> >> 2. As a logical consequence, organically produced food, without
> >> toxic pesticides, is safer (but not risk free), particulary if
>
> >But your assumption is incorrect - of course, organically produced food
> >is not "without toxic pesticides", rather it is loaded with them, as are
> >all plants, no matter how they are grown.
>
> In the UK "organic" is a legally protected food label which cannot be
> applied to foods unless, among other things, they have passed tests
> which show them to have *very* much lower pesticide levels than are
> permitted, and regularly occur, in non-organic foods.
I suspect that they only look for man-made pesticides. The point made by
others is that many of the naturally occurring "pesticides" are much more
potent and harmfull than the man-made chemicals. I suspect that the UK
"organic" movement parallels the US movement of taking an "if you don't look,
it isn't important" mentality towards naturally occuring pesticides.
Best regards,
Dave Kendra
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm c...@dai.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085
> School of Artificial Intelligence, Division of Informatics
> Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
> <http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/> DoD #205
David Kendra
> Harold Lindaberry skrev i meddelelsen <38A4177B...@epix.net>...
>
> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
> >> There are 70 odd different agents/mixtures/exposure circumstances
> >> which have been classified in IARC group 1. Only one of these can
> >> reasonably be said to involve exposure to a natural plant
> >> produced component: 8-Methoxypsoralen (when exposure to this
> >> compound is followed by exposure to ultraviolet A radiation)
>
> > Not aflatoxin ? Hmm
>
> Aflatoxin is not a natural plant produced component, Harold, it is
> produced by a fungus, which I am sure you know. Aflatoxin is of
> course classified by the IARC as a group 1 chemical (Carcinogenic in
> humans).
Aflatoxin is commonly found associated with poorly stored grain. Although it is
not produced naturally by a plant it is associated with the grain which we
consume. This stuff is a heck of alot more "nasty" (I work with it in my
research) than the chemicals I spray on my field plots. Treat it with the
respect it deserves.
Best regards,
Dave Kendra
David Kendra
Paul Rogers wrote:
> Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:+5LqDBA6...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <UD_o4.1503$R37....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Paul Rogers
> > <con...@imagic.com.au> writes
> >
> > >in any forum on this subject. It sounds like desperation to
> me.
> > >Strikes me as being a bit like 'new age' silliness from the
> other
> > >end!
> >
> > what sounds silly?
> >
> > 1) That plants contain plenty of natural pesticides.
> > 2) That they can increase the quantities of these pesticides
> when
> > attacked by pests.
> >
> > Do you think either or both of these are silly?
>
> Not necessarily, but Martin's decuction from this was that:
>
> 1. Organically grown produce has more natural pesticides because
> it is attacked more my pests
I suspect it is true. An acquaintance of mine who has an organic farm
here in Minnesota readily admits that he must recycle more than a
quarter of his material due to diseases. He informed me that his
numbers are comparable to other growers. The literature is full of
publications documenting pathogen induced production of pesticides.
Pick up any issue of the journal "Phytopathology" and you will find at
least one article dealing with this topic.
Best regards,
Dave Kendra
Torsten Brinch
>The literature is full of
>publications documenting pathogen induced production of pesticides.
>Pick up any issue of the journal "Phytopathology" and you will find at
>least one article dealing with this topic.
Hm, there does not seem to be one in the latest issue :-)
Anyhow, Dave, I noticed in one of your other posts today about
this subject, that you had apparently felt the need to put double
quotes around the term 'pesticides' as it is used in this context.
That made me wonder if you are also slightly uneasy about using
this particular term for the different chemical defenses which
have evolved and are inducable in plants. Is 'pesticides' the
proper term used for this in Phytopathology, or has another,
and more precise term been invented for the purpose of scientific
communication?
Another stray thought. I remember reading about a GMO,
in which a genetic construct apparently had paradoxically
induced an increase in the content of a plants normal
"pesticide" content. The article charactherised this discovery
as promising for the development of new GM control strategies.
Makes one wonder if an increased content of natural plant
"pesticides" is jolly fine, if it is patentable, but bloody dangerous,
if the plant, oh horror, does it organically, without paying royalty
to anyone :-)
Harold Lindaberry
David Kendra wrote:
> Paul Rogers wrote:
>
> > Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:+5LqDBA6...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> > > In article <UD_o4.1503$R37....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > Paul Rogers
> > > <con...@imagic.com.au> writes
> > >
> > > >in any forum on this subject. It sounds like desperation to
> > me.
> > > >Strikes me as being a bit like 'new age' silliness from the
> > other
> > > >end!
> > >
> > > what sounds silly?
> > >
> > > 1) That plants contain plenty of natural pesticides.
> > > 2) That they can increase the quantities of these pesticides
> > when
> > > attacked by pests.
> > >
> > > Do you think either or both of these are silly?
> >
> > Not necessarily, but Martin's decuction from this was that:
> >
> > 1. Organically grown produce has more natural pesticides because
> > it is attacked more my pests
>
> I suspect it is true. An acquaintance of mine who has an organic farm
> here in Minnesota readily admits that he must recycle more than a
> quarter of his material due to diseases.
This might tend to indicated that the plants aren't very
successful in producing enough pesticides to do the job if in fact that is
the disease resistance mechanism or whether it just is present there in
the first place - the problem is that there are so many diseases there
seems to be no across the disease spectrum resistance.
Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope " Lindaberry
1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
> He informed me that his
> numbers are comparable to other growers. The literature is full of
> publications documenting pathogen induced production of pesticides.
> Pick up any issue of the journal "Phytopathology" and you will find at
> least one article dealing with this topic.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dave Kendra
Adam Holland/Carol Feeney
I may be going out on a limb, but I suspect that these are the plants we
*don't eat*! Or at least don't eat without serious preparation. (cassava,
most cacti).
Every organism is going to evolve natural defenses against the organisms
which eat it. For sessile plants, many of these defenses are chemical.
But just as we have evolved into a symbiosis with our intestinal flora, for
instance --biological detente, if you will-- many plants are still eaten
by herbivores/omnivores, despite natural defenses. Many plants (fruits)
*expect* to be eaten, at the appropriate time, of course, that's what
"ripe" means. I will freely admit to not having read a great deal of
literature about the potential natural toxicities of organic produce, but I
cannot help but suspect that they are far less in scope than the
indiscriminate spraying of wholly artificial chemicals, with its
reverberations throughout the food chain, that is the hallmark of
industrial agriculture. DDT comes to mind, as do several others.
Martin Banschbach PhD
>Strikes me as being a bit like 'new age' silliness from the other
>end!
Paul,
The glycoalkaloid content of potato skins is determined by soil conditions
(damage done by natural pests in the soil). This is the only example I know of
for this phenomena (increased production of a natural pesticide in response to
increased pest damage to the growing crop). After harvest, physical damage to
the potato can also increase the glycoalkaloid content of the potato skin.
If a plant is producing natural pesticides, why wouldn't the plant increase
production if attacked by insects? It seems logical. Humans increase the
production of antioxidant enzymes in response to increased oxidative damage.
The concept is not new age, desperate or extraordinary. If crops are grown in
soil that has a better trace mineral content, the harvested crops should have a
better trace mineral content (be more nutritious). I'm not aware of proof of
this (though one poster in this thread did cite a source that seemed to
indicate what most people deem to be pretty obvious).
Common sense is not always correct. But if a plant spends time and energy
producing natural pesticides, why wouldn't the plant regulate production based
on need? (why produce it if there is no need for it?). Since we can measure
many of these natural pesticides, I hope that someday we will have data for
levels in organic produce versus regular produce (use of commercial pesticides
to limit insect damage). If there is no difference, them I'm way out in left
field as you state.
Marty B, "You are what you eat."
Martin Banschbach PhD
>poison is expensive. Plants that make poison when they don't need to
>are less competitive against plants that don't make poison unless they
>need too.
I don't know if plants can communicate. If they can, it might be wise to make
one plant produce less natural pesticide to save the others the added expense
of cranking out more (sacrifice one plant to save the rest).
One thing that I've learned as a biochemist is that no living thing wastes
energy. Insects communicate so why can't plants? If production of
communication chemicals is cheaper than production of chemicals to keep insects
away, the plant will go with communication first (try to get a similiar plant
in the area to not produce natural insecticides so the insects will attack it
first).
This is more "new age" than what I originally suggested. But if it's correct,
the remaining plants may not have higher than normal levels of natural
pesticides.
Another poster had mentioned loosing as much as 1/4 of the crop to insect
damage when organic methods are used. If the surviving crop has not insect
damage, the level of natural pesticide may not be higher than normal.
Root crops may not be able to communicate so they may be an exception.
Adam Holland
Health Nag <Health N...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<42Eo4.3211$LC4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> ALL Fruits, Grains, and Vegetables contain pesticides naturally produced
by
> plants.
Which we are unaffected by, otherwise we wouldn't eat them. Fruit, for
instance, is *supposed* to be eaten when ripe, to spread seeds through
animal discards or feces. I hardly think normal selection pressures would
cause a plant would co-evolve a mechanism to make its fruit palatable while
simultaneously filling it with dangerous chemicals. Toxic plants aren't in
human diets without substantial preparation, i.e. cassava. Furthermore,
even if we assumed that there were dangerous naturally occurring
pesticides, this would hardly excuse adding more artificial ones, nor
lessen the danger of same
Furthermore, synthetic pesticides drift by wind onto organically
> grown food. Crap falls out of the air, all the time. Have you ever
noticed
> how crudie dust collects on all your stuff from no where?
All the more reason to cut back on the use of such pesticides, and go
organic, no? Your logic is akin to suggesting it is safe to walk into a
reactor core because we are already exposed to damaging radiation from
incidental sunlight. Clearly, if we assume a background level of pesticide
contamination, the crop which is subsequently sprayed will have still more.
>
> Furthermore, organically grown food can be contaminated by animal waste
> products.
>
And non-organic food is somehow immune to this?
Adam Holland
Adam Holland
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<v9VuiCAE...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <kFyo4.23075$3b6....@ozemail.com.au>, Paul Rogers
> Either way modern pesticides are rather non-toxic and I for one am
> vastly more concerned for the person applying the product than ppt
> levels in a small percentage of vegetables.
>
> --
> Oz
>
Adam Holland
I have just spent an hour reading every single posting on this thread.
some of you clearly have more information (in the form of texts and or
research) at your disposal than I do, and I have no intention of getting
into a heated debate on the properties of organohalogens. :) Some of you
all are the snippiest, most belligerent, argumentative writers I have
encountered in some time. It is possible to bring emotion to a debate
without including vitriol or rancor, IMHO.
However, I have noticed a few things constantly resurfacing throughout the
thread, and I would greatly appreciate it if a few questions could be
answered by someone without an axe to grind.
1) Constant reference is made to these mysterious "natural pesticides",
"natural carcinogens" or what have you, depending on the author. One
person was kind enough to provide an exhaustive list of chemicals so
classified. However, unable to recognize the actual plant implicated by
many of these chemical names, what I would like to know is this.
Specifically, what plant foods, common in a human diet, contain
endogenously produced levels of chemicals inimical/dangerous to human life,
as the "organic is just as bad if not worse than conventional" people
assert? I ask, because it is my understanding (albeit not based in
molecular chemistry, but evolutionary biology) that edible plants are
edible because selection pressures have made it reproductively rewarding
for them to produce growths (fruit, for instance) that will be consumed by
animals.
If you all are going to go on and on about these nasty, under-estimated
natural toxins, I would like to know what foods they are in. So far, no
one has come up with anything but aflatoxin, some mushrooms, and maybe way
too many cherries. Are all fruits full of "natural pesticides"? What
about nuts? (I know peanuts harbor the aflatoxin fungus. I'm talking now
about the plants solo, not any commensal relationships which may exist.)
Please do not waste your time and mine by mentioning plants/chemicals
which are in the diet as chemicals, not calories, and are well known for
their adverse effects. I think anyone who has been following the debate
and said "Gosh! I've been ignoring the side-effects of alcohol and
caffeine while needlessly fearing DDT and carbamates!" has missed the
point, and you would undermine your credibility by suggesting otherwise.
2) Would someone (probably on the non-organic side, but I'm not picky)
please explain why it is that if there are these toxic chemicals in plants
we eat, we (humanity) have continued to eat them? Again, I understand that
there may be long-term invidious effects from trace chemicals only recently
isolated, which would only appear in historical demographic surveys, or
something like the effects of eating potatoes on anesthesia, but again,
this doesn't really sound like what you all are trying to discuss.
I'm reminded of nothing so much as the debate on global warming. On the
one side, there are the scientists and also "wooly thinkers" (nice one,
whoever that was) who maintain that the exponential increase in greenhouse
gases caused by human industrialization is causing a swifter than normal
rise in average global temperature. A lot of science is there to support
this hypothesis, but of course, given that vast magnitude of the system in
question, the factors at hand, and the fact we're well into chaos math
trying to model things, means that it can't be "proved".
On the other side are those who demand proof, hard and clear, and say that
we don't have enough data, the climate is too variable, other factors are
much more compelling, what about sunspots, etc. etc, and therefore do not
give any credence to the idea that the world is getting warmer.
Now, I don't have the answer about global warming any more than you do.
But what I have to wonder, every time it comes up, is this. Begging the
question of the greenhouse effect, how can anyone maintain, with a straight
face, that discharging billions of pounds of SO2, NO2, CO2, etc into the
atmosphere every year isn't a bad thing, regardless of demonstrable effects
on the yearly mean temperature?
Likewise, let's set aside the question of natural pesticides for the time
being, or even assume that they exist in greater quantities than actually
suggested. Someone please tell me how it can fail to be an undesirable
course of events that millions of pounds of artificial toxic chemicals are
dumped into the ecosystem every year, on top of these putative natural
ones.
Finally, I'd just like to point out that there is a lot more to organic
farming than just pesticide use and nutrient content, and that any balanced
answer to poor Skye, who seems to have been forgotten, would include
mention of soil conservation, water use, fertilization, mineral depletion,
resource management, etc.
With a wry smile,
Adam Holland
Oz
Holland <adam_h...@bigfoot.com> writes
>Which we are unaffected by, otherwise we wouldn't eat them. Fruit, for
>instance, is *supposed* to be eaten when ripe, to spread seeds through
>animal discards or feces. I hardly think normal selection pressures would
>cause a plant would co-evolve a mechanism to make its fruit palatable while
>simultaneously filling it with dangerous chemicals. Toxic plants aren't in
>human diets without substantial preparation, i.e. cassava. Furthermore,
>even if we assumed that there were dangerous naturally occurring
>pesticides, this would hardly excuse adding more artificial ones, nor
>lessen the danger of same
A nice idea, but unfortunately incorrect. We choose crop plants because
they give a reliable yield and are pest and disease free. Typically our
vegetables only have a very small number of pests which are able to
tolerate their toxins. Brassicae have mustard oils, potatoes have
solanins, legumes have phytoestrogens and a post to uncle al on
sci.chemistry will give you a list of the toxins of food plants as long
as your arm. At least one potato variety had enough solanin to cause
clinical illness and one celery variety enough toxins to cause eczema in
the packers.
To suggest we have co-evolved with our major food plants is more in hope
than practice. In evolutionary terms our food plants are recent, most
have been bred to produce better flavour/yield/tenderness/etc and better
disease resistance. None, as far as I am aware, have been bred for
reduced toxicity [oh, yes, canola has for both animal and human
toxicity].
It's quite likely that the browsing nature of man and an active
biochemistry (probably inherited from our herbivorous ancestors) mean
that we are not very susceptible to many plant toxins but that doesn't
mean that persistent moderate exposure is good for you. Personally I
would like further investigation of the actual effect of such exposure
as we know rather little about it except in a few limited examples.
Probably the safest thing to eat is meat.
--
Oz
Harold Lindaberry
Adam Holland/Carol Feeney wrote:
> No doubt there are many plants which produce dreadful natural pesticides.
> I may be going out on a limb, but I suspect that these are the plants we
> *don't eat*! Or at least don't eat without serious preparation. (cassava,
> most cacti).
> Every organism is going to evolve natural defenses against the organisms
> which eat it. For sessile plants, many of these defenses are chemical.
> But just as we have evolved into a symbiosis with our intestinal flora, for
> instance --biological detente, if you will-- many plants are still eaten
> by herbivores/omnivores, despite natural defenses. Many plants (fruits)
> *expect* to be eaten, at the appropriate time, of course, that's what
> "ripe" means. I will freely admit to not having read a great deal of
> literature about the potential natural toxicities of organic produce, but I
> cannot help but suspect that they are far less in scope than the
> indiscriminate spraying of wholly artificial chemicals, with its
> reverberations throughout the food chain, that is the hallmark of
> industrial agriculture. DDT comes to mind, as do several others.
I guess in a way you are correct - the 100's of millions of people perhaps
billions of people alive today and have their ass unhooked from the end of a
hoe handle so they can play with their computers and whatever else they care to
play with and have have at least an adequate diet at a reasonable cost - that
certainly is quite a reverberation. I suppose one's idea on the use of DDT .and
other pesticides depends somewhat on whether you are here because of their use
and - where your OX is tethered.
Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope " Lindaberry
1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
Torsten Brinch
><..> At least one potato variety had enough solanin to cause
>clinical illness <..>
Solanine is a glycoalkaloid which is found in varying amounts
in all potatoes. Factors which governs the concentration are mainly
exposure to sunlight (green potatoes), potato variety, and maturity
stage. Solanine is usually found in potatoes at concentrations in
the range 2-13 mg/kg fresh weight. Solanine contents below
20 mg/kg fresh weight are generally recognized as safe for
human consumption. The growing of varieties which tend to
produce above this levels under normal conditions is generally
to be avoided.
Boiling will normally reduce the solanine contents to 60-70 %
of the content in the fresh potato. Apart from boiling, the
consumer can minimize his risk from solanine ingestion
by peeling potatoes with a knife, and by rejection of any
potatoes with green parts found in a purchased batch.
Consumers of non-organic produce would be expected to be
at increased risk of experiencing clinical illness from exposure
to solanine, due to the wide-spread occurrence of residues
of similarly acting organophosphate and carbamate pesticides
in the non-organic food supply.
Harold Lindaberry
Torsten Brinch wrote:
? solanine a cholinesterase inhibitor ? It's been a long time since
I checked but as I recall pesticides in potatoes were always low or ND (
usually ND ) in EPA market basket analysis except where sprout
inhibitors were used - perhaps EU is different ?
Harold
Jim Webster
Oz wrote in message
>Probably the safest thing to eat is meat.
lot to be said for this point of view. A plants best defence mechanism is to
poison it's attacker, The average animal tries to out run or out fight it's
predator. Hence by the time it ends up on the table as meat it has done what
it can to kill you.
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>
>--
>Oz