craig k harris
dept of sociology
429b berkey hall
michigan state university
east lansing michigan 48824-1111
u.s.a.
t: 517-355-5048
f: 517-432-2856
> ----------
> From: Bob MacGregor
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 June, 1998 12:55
> To: gardenbetty@earthlink.net; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu
> Subject: Re: pesticide industry vs. auto industry -Reply
>
> >>>- No information currently exists (though this may change soon) on
> toxicity
> for 80% of the 75,000 chemicals listed by the EPA, because they have
> never
> been tested. These chemicals are in daily use in the U.S.<<<<
>
> I think it is unfair to focus solely on "chemical" (ie, man-made
> chemicals).
> Doing this makes it impossible to evaluate their relative riskiness
> compared to everyday things we use or consume. For example, to
> quote from a letter to the editor of New Scientist (7 Feb. 1998) by Cheryl
> Monks in reference to an earlier article about the harmful effects of
> pesticides:
> "The article also stated that bromoxynil is a carcinogen and mutagen.
> While this may be true, it is also true that parsnips, mushrooms and black
> pepper contain carcinogens (namely psoralens, hydrazines and piperine,
> respectively) and that lettuce, rhubarb and string beans, among many
> others, are kinown to be mutagenic. Government authorities haven't yet
> banned the population from eating them, and it is important that the true
> risk to health from pesticides be assessed and understood before
> jumping on the "all-pesticides-are-bad" bandwagon."
>
> I am ready to agree that heavy reliance on pesticides is not a
> sustainable strategy, and reducing dependence on them is desirable for
> that reason by itself. However, I would like to know whether exposure
> to any particular pesticide residue carries more risk of endocrine
> disruption, mutagenicity or carcinogenicity than naturally-occurring
> substances in the food I am consuming.... or, even if such residues
> appreciably add to naturally-occuring risks. I presume that pesticide
> residues in food (and elsewhere in the environment) are harmful, but I
> don't know how this compares with the general level of risk that is
> already out there.
> Heck, that wonderful smell in the spruce woods is as overpowering as
> the odour after the neighbouring farmer sprays a field -- it might also be
> as carcinogenic as any farm chemical for all I know. And that is the
> point: I don't know. So, in fairness to those of us who are trying to
> make informed decisions about managing our exposure to all sorts of
> substances in our environment, let's advocate a comparative set of
> studies of relative toxicity, relative carcinogenicity and relative
> mutagenicity. (eg chemical X is twice as mutagenic as lettuce but only
> two-thirds as mutagenic as rhubarb)
> I know how worried/comfortable I am about the types of food I eat, but I'd
> like to be able to use that level of comfort as an index to how worried I
> should be about man-made substances in/on my food or in the water or
> air.
>
> for what it's worth,
> BOB
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".