On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:05:33 +0000, Gloria <enquires@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:45:52 +0000, Malcolm
><Malcolm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <slrnfjp394.4ae.greymausg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, greymaus
>><greymausg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>>On 2007-11-15, SarahB <badder****ho@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember the fairly recent scare over dodgy peanuts killing birds
etc?
>>>>> this was due to these toxins. Farmers don't grow peanuts for
wildlife.
>>>>> They are grown for human consumption, and feed is the rejected
>>>>> produce. It's a thin line twixt pass/fail and who decides?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Grateful to know which farmers in UK grow peanuts - as I need some
>>>> more for my birds.
>>>>
>>>> Sarah
>>>> Taunton
>>>
>>>When I was young[er] and the weather was good all the time, etc, etc,
>>>the british decided that a way of giving the natives in kenya
>>>something to do was to promote groundnut production..
>>
>>Close - actually Tanganyika
>>
>>> It became a
>>>common foodstuff, until the toxin was noticed.. when was that?..
>>>early 1950's or so. AFAIK , they have been tested ever since.. Wow,
>>>thats hot news!.
>>>
>>The project was cancelled in 1951, I think. There were many other
>>reasons than toxins.
>>
>>Wikipedia:
>>"The peanut plant is susceptible to the mold Aspergillus flavus which
>>produces a carcinogenic substance called aflatoxin. Since it is
>>impossible to completely remove every instance of aflatoxins,
>>contamination of peanuts and peanut butter is monitored in many
>>countries to ensure safe levels of this carcinogen. The average American
>>container of peanut butter contains a ratio of 13 parts per billion of
>>aflatoxins, one thousand times more diluted than the recommended safe
>>level of consumption, thus making it completely safe to consume in terms
>>of carcinogen intoxication."
>>
>>There are still peanuts sold as bird food which may not have been tested
>>for aflatoxins, but supplies from all reputable sources are OK.
>
>Although supplies from many sources have been killing birds for some
>time. Even the RSPB have been warning about it, or did you forget to
>mention that? Maybe you thought deaths of wildlife, like humans was
>unworthy of mention?
>
>
>
30 million Americans affected by liver disease
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/61729.php
The American Liver Foundation Warns Of An Increase In U.S. Liver
Cancer Deaths
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/may/17/cancercare.cancer
Alarm at increase in liver cancer deaths
James Meikle Society Guardian Thursday May 17 2001 Scientists are
investigating the possibility that chemical pollutants in the
environment or food have helped to almost double the number of deaths
from liver cancer in England and Wales in the last 30 years.
The huge rise is mainly down to a once-rare form of the disease that
has increased 15-fold among people over 45 and has been the most
common killer since 1993.
Tumours form in the bile ducts and may be linked to wider use of
cancer-inducing chemicals in agriculture or industry after the second
world war, Simon Taylor-Robinson, of Imperial College school of
medicine, London, suggested.
The effects may have taken 30 years to manifest themselves. "The lines
fit nicely but it is supposition. A lot of work has to be done. Are
there clusters around the country? Are they rural? Does one think
about pesticides and sheep dip; or is it something industrial or in
the water?"
Dr Taylor-Robinson insisted: "I don't want any scare. Maybe we are
visiting the effects of previous generations."
More studies were required, including whether some people's jobs put
them at extra risk, and to what extent the rise in the particular type
of cancer was a phenomenon in developed countries. Some were already
under way at Imperial College, he said.
Liver cancer is difficult to treat, with many patients not surviving a
year after diagnosis and just 2% of sufferers surviving more than five
years.
Dr Taylor-Robinson and his colleagues found that 1,822 people in
England and Wales had died from liver tumours in 1996, compared with
967 in 1968. Deaths among women rose from 1.29 per 100,000 in 1968 to
1.93 per 100,000 in 1996. The comparable figures for men were 2.56 per
100,000 in 1968 and 3.7 per 100,000 in 1996.
But a study of the figures, re****ted in the medical journal Gut, shows
how much of the rise is caused by intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma,
found in the bile ducts. In 1968, just 38 people died from this, 17
women and 21 men. By 1996 , this had risen to 736 - 387 women and 349
men. Later figures suggested this rose to 864 in 1998.
Better diagnosis might account for some of this, but other factors
must be involved, the team suggested. These include alcohol and
smoking and the once common use of a substance called Thorostat in
x-rays, although it was banned many years ago.
Wide use of the contraceptive pill has also been suggested but case
control studies had failed to substantiate increased risk. But Dr
Taylor-Robinson suggested "certain toxins have enzyme-disrupting
capabilities and act like the oral contraception pill."
He added: "The liver has a blood purifying capability and many toxins
which are in blood will get ex****ted out of the system in bile."
The new death figures had to be looked at carefully but the trend
could not be ignored, he said. The tumours responded poorly to
treatment. "Nobody knows what causes them. If we can pinpoint an
at-risk population, we can screen for them... Colon cancer still kills
20 times more people, but in the next few years we could be talking
about a significant problem."
He added that if exposure to chemicals was a factor, then genetic and
other factors must make some people more susceptible than others.
Nigel Hughes, chief executive of the British Liver Trust, said it was
imperative that more work was done in examining the cases of the
"Cinderella disease". He added: "The liver is the sewage plant of the
body and we have to raise awareness of just how im****tant it is."
Brad Timms, scientific information officer at the Cancer Research
Campaign, said: "There has not been a great deal of evidence to
suggest environmental carcinogens cause liver cancer or any other
cancer at the moment. There is a feeling the jury is still out. We may
not see the full effect for 30 years."
The European Commission and the food standards agency in this country
are considering reductions in maximum limits of dioxins in animal feed
and human food
pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
