Illinois
Fertilizer Conference Proceedings
January 23-24, 1990
| Home | 1990 Index | Search |
| Home | 1990 Index | Search |
R.J. Reber1
The use of pesticides and the potential problems they may cause have attracted increasing public interest. Pesticide issues came to a climax early in 1989 when the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) raised questions about the possible harm to children that could result from eating Alar-treated apples. The issue grabbed center stage in the media and the rest is history. Apples were pulled out of bins and taken off school lunch menus. Some apple growers suffered economic losses.
What seemingly escaped notice was that the NRCD Report was about much more than "rocket fuel in baby food." (1) It was an indictment against procedures that government agencies use to protect the public against exposure to pesticide residues and potential negative health effects. Alar use was merely a "good" example to illustrate NRDC's viewpoint -- right or wrong.
While the particular issue of Alar has been resolved, the basic issues raised have not, and additional incidents can be expected. For those associated with the farm/food industry who hope the pesticide issue will just go away, disappointment is likely to occur. This situation will continue, perhaps at an increasing frequency.
Research conducted by the Opinion Research Corp. for the Food Marketing Institute has quantified consumer concern about pesticide safety over time. Given below by year of survey are the percent of the shopping public who believe pesticide residues on food are a serious health hazard. (2)
That these problems, real or perceived, are important was documented by the results of the Sandoz Agricultural Poll taken last September at the National Association of County Agricultural Agents meeting. A portion of the poll results is given below.
As county agricultural agents feel the pulse of their respective communities, the concern is major, and it is increasing.
Many varied reasons account for this continued and rising concern over pesticide residues on food. Consider the following.
First, consumers do not understand the food chain from production to consumption. Consumers are being increasingly separated from the land -- the biological source of their food supply. Such lack of understanding and separation may lead to safety concerns because persons tend to develop a level of mistrust for the unfamiliar.
Secondly, individual case examples and/or incidents will continue to emerge that grab media attention and concentrate thoughts on food safety issues. There are numerous "grandfathered" pesticides that are in use. For example, close on the heels of the Alar controversy, questions were and continue to be raised about EDBC (ethylene bisdithiocarbamate) fungicides.
Also, look at the current concerns being voiced about pesticide contamination of ground and surface water.
Pesticides have been detected in the groundwater of 26 states as a result of normal agricultural practices. (3).
Recent surveys conducted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency indicate detectable amounts of pesticides are commonly found in surface water and to a lesser extent in groundwater.
Atrazine has been the pesticide most often found. Such ground and surface water contamination tends to reinforce the concern over residues on food. And the public feels they have a right not to have a health risk imposed on them without their knowing about it. (4).
Thirdly, concerns about food safety are a spin off of the current environmental movement, a movement that will probably gain increasing momentum as growing numbers of our global village become concerned about prospects of global sustainability. At present, few of us fully realize and appreciate the magnitude of this bio-socio-political movement.
There are certain stances that portions of the farm/food industry have taken that may be counterproductive when one considers the overall effect on consumer confidence in the food supply.
Among the most detrimental of these actions are the ones that appear or are perceived by the greater public to be "foot dragging" on the part of industry or government regulators.
Now that relief has been granted from the Delaney paradox, continued lobbying for a pesticide that exceeds de minimus standards puts industry in a bad light. Additionally, shipping and using U.S.-banned pesticides abroad may help a company cut its short-term losses but it does long-term damage to its ethical image -- particularly when those pesticides come home full circle on foreign produce.
There are other arguments that are perceived by the public as simply "blowing smoke". While there are legitimate concerns about extrapolating and predicting actual risk from high dose exposure data, to say that high dose experiments are next to meaningless, gains only mistrust on the part of consumers. To continue to talk about natural carcinogens like safrole and aflatoxin may lead to a backlash.
While any reasonable person would agree that dangers from natural carcinogens are real, many consider bringing up such examples a diversion from the real issues. Additionally, a growing number of persons are beginning to place more faith in the "wisdom of nature" as opposed to the "cleverness of man". Pointing out that hazards exist in nature does not win any converts. The common response from the public is, "So why add to the already existing risks of cancer?"
While the debate continues about whether pesticide residue problems are real or perceived, there are real problems all should be directing their efforts toward solving. Among the most important is the slowness that the bureaucratic machinery moves to correct legitimate concerns. Currently, it takes from four to eight years to cancel a problem pesticide. (5).
This bureaucratic lethargy does nothing to bolster public confidence in the safety of the food supply.
Secondly, "grandfathered" pesticides continue to pose philosophical if not real health problems. A situation where older and potentially more damaging pesticides can be legally used -- and newer, more environmentally-safe substances can't pass current, more stringent standards -- should not be tolerated.
Thirdly, the whole question of multiple exposures to different pesticides is not being adequately addressed. The best case scenario would predict that the effects of being exposed to multiple pesticides would be additive. How can the multiple exposure question be resolved with the concept of de minimus that considers only one pesticide residue at a time?
Finally, our current ability to predict future risk is lacking. Our risk assessment capabilities must be improved so that more accurate predictions can be made. These are some of the problems that must be addressed because they are real problems that can lead to problems both real and perceived.
President George Bush's Food Safety Plan, released Oct. 26, 1989, is certainly a step in the right direction. (6). This proposal tackles some of the tough problems that currently exist in our pesticide regulator system -- that of taking too long to identify problems and too long in acting on those problems once identified.
Certain points in the proposal will be challenged on a philosophical basis (for example, a "range" of de minimus values). However, the overall intent and direction of the proposal is very positive in solving some of the real problems that do exist. One can only surmise that this proposal was spurred on by the Alar controversy, and the present concern about EDBCs.
While many in the farm/food industry view consumer concerns abut pesticides as a negative, there are positive aspects. First, the concern provides a "teachable moment" to capitalize on and provide information that permeates the broader issues of food production, nutrition and health.
Secondly, public concern combats complacency and helps the system work. It keeps the bureaucracies that are charged with protecting the food supply on their collective toes.
Table 1. Food Marketing Institute Survey
Table 2. Sandoz Agricultural Poll
1. Aidala, James V. "Apple Alarm: Public Concern About Pesticide Residues in Fruits and Vegetables", CRS Report for Congress. The Library of Congress, March 10, 1989.
2. Food Marketing Institute. "Food Safety", Trends: Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket. Washington, D.C. Food Marketing Institute, 1989.
3. Williams, W.M. et al. Pesticides in the Groundwater Data Base: 1988 Interim Report. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., 1988.
4. Kuhlman, D. "Feeling the Heat from Pesticide Issues", Prairie Farmer. Nov. 7, 1989.
5. Joint Statement for Secretary Yeutter, Secretary Sullivan and Administrator Reilly on Food Safety Plan announced by President George Bush. Washington, D.C., Oct. 25, 1989.
6. Fact Sheet: President Bush's Food Safety Plan. Washington D.C., The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Oct. 26, 1989.
1Robert J. Reber is Professor of Foods and Nutrition, Department of Foods and Nutrition, School of Human Resources and Family Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
