Re: Rick imidacloprid vs. carbamates

[wytze <geno@zap.a2000.nl>]

Wuerthele.Suzanne@epamail.epa.gov wrote:

> Hello Rick,
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Thanks for your note. Safety is of course always relative.  I assume from
> your comments that you have accepted that the ED50 for imidacloprid is much
> lower than for most OPs and carbamates.  Would you agree that in contrast
> to many OPs and carbamates, it is nearly impossible to die from acute skin
> exposure to imidacloprid?
>
> With respect to long term exposure, you raise the issues of safety (worker
> protection, non-target toxicity) and then cite examples of long term
> feeding studies (eg., "when rats were fed the chemical for 2 years, there
> were thyroid  lesions in males at  much lower doses - 300 ppm  (47 mg/kg)
> and females at 900 ppm (68 mg/kg)"). How would this compare to the chronic
> effects of OPs and carbamates?
>
> Does a feeding study reflect the chances of worker exposure, especially if
> appropriate and standard protective gear is worn?   What would see as the
> relative non-target effects?
>
> Can you also clarify for our audience what environmental risks, if any, you
> see from imidacloprid?"
> ------------------------
>
> Misinformation, often in the form of hyperbole, is a constant problem for those
> of us who expect list serve participants to discuss genetic engineering.
> Arguments over these statements seem to take on a life of their own, clogging
> our computers unnecessarily and distracting everyone from the intended issues.
>
> I'm sorry I can't entertain your request to give "our audience" detailed
> information on the relative acute and chronic health effects, worker
> implications, and environmental risks of imidacloprid versus OPs and carbamates.
> It's off-topic.
>
> Suzanne

  I would like to add that the Novartis Patent does by no means exclude the use of
OP's and carbamates. On the contrary, they are "preferred auxiliarysubstances".
Wytze