peanut lobby?

Daniel Byrd ctraps at RADIX.NET
Sun Oct 17 11:45:42 EST 1999


Kristofer D. Dale wrote:

> Interesting, have you witnessed any situations where such risks (long-term
> effects of pesticide residues on assimilation of nutrients and the possible
> deleterious effects on immune function) were deemed preponderant enough to
> abandon development of a specific product?

For the registered pesticides I have examined in detail (e.g., several
of the
organophosphates), no.  In a more general sense, I have to give a
conditional
answer.  I have not looked at all pesticides, and I would particularly
remain
suspicious of some of the older generation of pesticides that are
biopersistent for possible long-term, subtle effects on plants and soil
fertility.  Your question also seems to cover unregistered pesticides
(e.g.,
candidate pesticides under development).  I do not have access to such
data,
but I think that the standard tests required for registration detect
candidates with deleterious effects on the immune system.  It seems most
likely that scientists working for the manufacturing companies eliminate
such
substances before submission for registration.  It seems pointless to
detect
significant anti-immune effects and undergo the expense of submitting
the
candidate for registration, knowing that EPA's scientists will reject
it.
Whatever the case, I have never seen an anti-immune effect that both the
registrant and EPA failed to detect.

dbyrd
--

Daniel M. Byrd III, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.
President,
Consultants in Toxicology, Risk Assessment and Product Safety
Suite 707 North
560 N Street, SW
Washington, DC 20024
(202)484-7707 - phone
(202)484-0616 - fax
ctraps at radix.net - email




More information about the Toxicol mailing list