Day 244 - 03 May 96 - Page 21


     
     1        evidence to support it, of pesticide related illness.  If
     2        you read the journals and quite a number of articles in
     3        newspapers, you can see this dichotomy, this spread of
     4        professional interest in the two separate counts.
     5
     6        It was, as I said last time, relatively recently that
     7        I started to say, "All right, is my belief justified" and
     8        I started to do some serious field work and some serious
     9        reading.  I came to the conclusion that my dismissive
    10        attitude towards pesticide damage was not wholly justified.
    11
    12   Q.   Yes.  I think Mr. Morris is going to read on but have you
    13        changed your view since the 17th January 1996?
    14        A.  No.
    15
    16   MR. MORRIS:  Which bit?  Sorry, I do not know which bit you are
    17        referring to.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I think you had better read on.
    20
    21   MR. MORRIS:  If anything needs clarification, as we are going
    22        through the rest, please do because there may be something
    23        that is open to interpretation.  Reading on:
    24
    25        "On the other hand, my understanding of the toxic
    26        mechanism of the OPs is such that I believe current
    27        criteria for assessing toxicity are not appropriate.  In
    28        this context, it is accepted practice to determine acute
    29        toxicity by reference to the immediately detectable effect
    30        of pesticides on animals, administered at relatively high
    31        doses.  From data obtained from such toxicity tests, an
    32        arbitrary level is calculated, to represent a 'safe' daily
    33        intake for man, at or below which it is deemed no harm will
    34        occur from repeated exposure.
    35
    36        This methodology may be adequate for toxins which express
    37        an effect above a known threshold but are metabolised
    38        and/or removed from the body at lower levels, but
    39        discussions with numerous experts in the field of OP
    40        poisoning lead me to conclude there is no level at which
    41        exposure to OPs do not cause damage to the nervous system.
    42        Thus, OPs must be considered differently.
    43
    44        However, it is well known and established that the nervous
    45        system in humans has a level of redundancy and the body can
    46        sustain high levels of damage before signs of any toxic
    47        effect are apparent - to the extent that they are
    48        recognisable as OP poisoning.
    49
    50        It is thus my view that any exposure to OP residues is 
    51        undesirable in that damage may be caused, the damage rather 
    52        than the toxins being cumulative.  In that McDonald's foods 
    53        may well have detectable residues of OPs, consumption of
    54        such foods might be considered undesirable.
    55
    56        Nevertheless, this view might extend to all other foods
    57        produced by intensive farming systems where agrochemicals
    58        are heavily used, but would not extend to produce grown or
    59        reared under what are known 'organic' systems."
    60

Prev Next Index