Conscious Choice: Answering Your Food Safety Questions

March 1996

Answering Your Food Safety Questions

by Jim Slama & Ken Mergentime

When did pesticides first become recognized as a problem?
Heavy use of pesticides began after World War II and, except for a handful of objections, was generally applauded. Then Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring became a beacon for those concerned about the hazards of pesticides such as DDT. Carson, a respected scientist, warned about the slow cumulative impact of these chemicals on human health, claiming that, "For the population as a whole, we must be more concerned with the delayed effects of absorbing small amounts of the pesticides that invisibly contaminate our world." Carson herself was a victim of breast cancer and died just two years after Silent Spring was published.

Are pesticides in today’s food supply really that dangerous?
There is much disagreement on this point. According to Joseph Hotchkiss, Ph.D., a food scientist at Cornell University, "Human epidemiology does not support the idea that cancer or other human diseases are related to pesticides as food residues."

However, many scientists argue that pesticides in food may indeed be a primary cause of cancer. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) records show that the amount of pesticides used on U.S. food escalated from 300 million pounds in 1960 to more than 800 million pounds in 1993. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), "of the 300 different pesticides used on food, as many as 71 are known, probable, or possible human carcinogens based on laboratory tests on animals."

And cancer rates continue to climb. In 1960, as many as one in four people were expected to get cancer over the course of their lifetimes. According to the National Cancer Institute, people living in 1994 had a two-in-five chance of getting cancer over their lifetime. That is a 60-percent increase in the probability of cancer over a mere 34-year period. Although pesticides may be but one contributing factor, of particular concern to researchers is the prevalence of pesticides considered to be estrogenic chemicals.

What are estrogenic pesticides, and why are they of concern?
These compounds are derived from chlorine and are part of the organochlorine family. They are called "estrogenic" because they mimic or block the action of the human hormone estrogen, a compound produced by both males and females that regulates sexual and reproductive function. Research has linked organochlorine to some forms of cancer.

Many pesticides commonly used on food are estrogenic and are therefore implicated in cancer health statistics. Coincidentally, since the 1940s when estrogenic pesticides such as DDT were first used, the incidence of breast and prostate cancer has doubled and testicular cancer has tripled. These chemicals have also been linked to the drop in human sperm counts, now half of what they were 50 years ago.

Doesn’t the government monitor and restrict pesticides?
Yes, the registration and use of pesticides are governed under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under FIFRA, the EPA establishes a tolerance or maximum residue level of the pesticide to be legally permitted in or on a food. In addition, under FDCA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducts a regulatory monitoring program in which samples of domestically grown and imported foods are analyzed for a wide range of pesticide residues.

However, EPA does not classify, regulate, or require tests for estrogenicity. In addition, it does not consider the combined effects of these chemicals. Fruits and vegetables commonly contain several different pesticides, and researchers have found that estrogenic pesticides increase in toxicity when combined.

In Israel, breast cancer rates have dropped dramatically among women since the country banned estrogenic pesticides in 1978. In the United States, researchers have discovered much higher levels of estrogenic pesticides in the tissues of women who have breast cancer versus those with benign breast tumors.

FDA’s pesticide monitoring program last year reported that 1.6 percent of the 3,384 domestic fruit and vegetable samples tested contained residues above EPA tolerances or contamination by unregistered pesticides, and about 3.5 percent of the 5,000 imported produce samples were not within acceptable parameters. The agency promoted these findings as indicating "very low" residue levels.

But the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a Washington-based watchdog organization, blasted the FDA in its recent report, Forbidden Fruit: Illegal Pesticides in the U.S. Food Supply. The study implicates the FDA for having a monitoring program that "virtually guarantees under-reporting of both legal and illegal pesticide residues." In addition, the report concludes that 5.6 percent of the total samples tested by the FDA contained illegal pesticides. The group says that FDA ignored any sample that was near the "borderline" of infraction. "Some of the violations were for chemicals such as DDT, which have been banned for years in the United States, but still show up in samples," says Susan Elderkin, co-author of the study. "Even worse," Elderkin says, "nearly all of this contaminated produce still ends up on people’s tables because the FDA has little enforcement authority."

How safe is non-organic food for my children?
One of the most sensitive aspects of food safety concerns is worry over the health of children. In the past, when formulating acceptable risk levels for pesticide consumption, EPA has ignored the fact that children eat large quantities of certain fruits and vegetables such as apples, bananas and oranges, yet have a much lower body weight than adults.

And in EWG’s most recent report, Pesticides in Baby Food, released on July 26, "We found sixteen pesticides in just eight brand-name baby foods made by the three companies that dominate the market," says Kenneth Cook, president of EWG. "We found pesticides in half the samples we took, and in seven of the eight foods [tested]." Levels found were well within EPA tolerances, but tolerances are not geared to an infant’s underdeveloped metabolism. And when it comes to pesticides, "growing infants are far more sensitive than adults," Cook says.

In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a report called Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children criticizing EPA for this oversight. NAS recommended that standards should be adjusted to reflect the risk assumed by children eating these vegetables. The agency has yet to act on these recommendations. However, several bills have been introduced in Congress that address these and other NAS recommendations.

What about meat and poultry products?
There is mounting evidence that potentially harmful residues are even more prevalent in animal products than in produce. This is because animals accumulate pesticides and other contaminants in their fats at much higher levels than exist on typical fruits and vegetables. Beef cattle, for example, ingest pesticides on the grains they eat, they are injected with artificial growth hormones and steroids, and antibiotics are routinely added to feed. Concentrations of residues are then stored in fatty tissues, which are in turn consumed with the beef. Chickens, pigs, calves, and other animals that eventually make their way to dinner tables are subjected to similar routines. Additionally, dairy products have been shown to contain high levels of antibiotics and hormones.

Furthermore, many of the hormones commonly given to livestock are estrogenic. Sam Epstein, Ph.D., director of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, warned in a Los Angeles Times article of "the carcinogenic risks of estrogenic additives, which can increase and imbalance normal hormone levels. Unanswered is whether such estrogen dosage is involved in increasing cancers."

What about seafood safety?
Seafood inspections were criticized by safe-food advocates for allowing far higher levels of carcinogens and bacteria in some fish than standards allow. Shellfish in particular are subject to bacterial contamination. Other environmental toxins such as mercury, DDT, PCBs and dioxin are found in fish tissues, often at dangerous levels. This is particularly true for fish caught in lakes or ocean coastal areas subject to farm and industrial run-off. Even so-called farmed fish are not guaranteed safe. Some are contaminated with the same run-off that contaminates other fish.

In an effort to stem bacteriological contamination, the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) division of USDA has adopted a mandatory Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) program for the seafood industry. HACCP programs can help lessen possibility of food contamination by monitoring and improving how foods are processed, right down to the retail level.

How safe is milk?
There are significant problems with milk and dairy products in general. As mentioned above, hormones and antibiotics are often present in dairy products because of these drugs are used on most farms. Another even more insidious problem in the genetically engineered Bovine-Growth Hormone, which is supposed to increase milk production when injected into dairy cows.

The drug, manufactured by the Monsanto Corp., was approved by the FDA despite potential human health problems associated with consuming milk from rBGH cows. Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Pure Food Campaign, a consumer advocacy group, notes that "despite scientific evidence linking rBGH to cancer and other health problems, the drug was approved without one single test examining its impact on humans ingesting products from animals treated with it. In a quest for greater profits, it appears that agribusiness is willing to play Russian roulette with our health."

A recent study released by Dr. Samuel Epstein of the Chicago based Cancer Prevention Coalition affirms the cancer risk. The report clearly tied rBGH with the increased production of the chemical IGF-1 in milk from treated cows. As a result of this increased IGF-1, Epstein claims that risks for breast and colon cancer are substantially higher, especially in infants and small children consuming the dairy products.

Isn’t a lot of meat tainted with some kind of bacteria?
Bacterial contamination is a food safety question charged with human drama. Consumers in 1993 were rightly distressed about reports of more than 200 food poisoning cases and three deaths caused by the deadly bacteria, E. Coli, found in undercooked hamburger meat. More recent outbreaks of salmonella poisonings associated with factory-farmed poultry have also been stirring public concern. Both of these problems are associated with poor sanitation and improper storage temperatures.

Government studies have revealed that bacteria such as salmonella and E. Coli are commonly found in much of the meat, eggs and poultry sold in this country. The USDA and FDA say that people can protect themselves by proper cooking. However, safe-food advocates claim this is just masking the deeper problem of unsanitary conditions at processing facilities.

Food irradiation is a solution approved by FDA for spices, poultry and some fresh produce. However, the idea of treating foods with low doses of radioactive material rather than cleaning up processing facilities has not been well received by many consumers, especially since no long-term tests have been performed to determine impact of the process on human health.

Is organic food safer?
Organic food is clearly a great option for those interested in healthier, safer food. Food produced using organic methods lack the toxic pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and other poisons that so often pervade conventional food. Organic agriculture is also a much more environmentally sound method of producing food, because it takes a balanced approach, one in harmony with the cycles of nature.

Organic producers are clear to warn however, that an organic label is not a guarantee that a product is completely pesticide free. Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association, says in today’s chemical laden world there is always a possibility for pesticide exposure. "Sure, organic growers use far fewer toxic chemicals than conventional growers," she says. "But we can’t make the claim that the food is chemical free. What if the farmer next door over-sprays on an organic farmer’s crop and this chemical shows up in a test?"

Most experts agree that the industry must be conservative in its claims, but still not ignore the obvious benefits of organic. "While organic food is not guaranteed to be pesticide free, it certainly is much less likely to have residues and thus provides greater safety," says Susan Elderkin. "The evidence against pesticides is overwhelming. If the public is aware of the process of organic farming and the manner in which the risk of toxic chemicals has been minimized, I believe that many will choose to purchase organic — even at a higher price."

Resources
Mothers and Others for a Livable Planet, 40 West 20th St., New York, NY 10011, 212-242-0010 Ext. 305.
Pure Food Campaign, 1130 17th St., #630, Washington, DC 20036, 800-252-0681.
Environmental Working Group, 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW. #600, Washington, DC 20009, 202-667-6982.

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: