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
