Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page
]]]]]]] APPLE DANGERS ARE JUST SO MUCH APPLESAUCE [[[[[[[[
By Elizabeth M. Whelan (3/15/1989)
From The Wall Street Journal, 14 March 1989, p. A24:4
[published one day after I printed pp. 2 & 3 of the April AtE issue,
where I took a similar stand. Sysop.]
Mrs. Whelan heads the American Council on Science and Health
(1995 Broadway, New York, NY 10023-5860), a New York group that
gets about 10% of its funding from pesticide producers such as
Uniroyal Chemicals Co., the makers of Alar.
[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]
Nutritional terrorists tossed one of their biggest grenades
yet with last month's Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
study claiming that pesticide residues on fresh fruits
(especially apples) and vegetables put our children at increased
risk of cancer.
The media recognized a hot story when they saw one -- and
killer applesauce was the topic of the day on numerous TV
programs, a few of which [``Today'' and ``Donahue''] featured
guest Meryl Streep recommending that we wash our asparagus in
detergent to reduce the level of ``poisons''. The message
accepted almost completely and uncritically by the media is also
being packaged now in public service announcements endorsed by a
spectrum of luminaries, including pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton
and Writer Julie Nixon Eisenhower.
What remain unclear, however, are the report's credibility;
how the conclusions related to scientific consensus about the
causes of cancer; the definition of the word ``carcinogen''; and
the health effects of implementing the report's recommendations:
reducing or eliminating pesticide use.
o Credibility. The NRDC, founded in 1970, is a litigation
group, not a scientific organization, partially funded by several
ultra-liberal foundations. Among its dubious achievements is the
banning, a few years ago [1984], of the useful, safe pesticide
EDB. (NRDC's MO is that it threatens to sue the government, and
the regulatory agency obediently regulates.)
In issuing this most recent condemnation of pesticides the
NRDC bypassed the essential protocol of the scientific method:
peer review. Simply put, it is highly unlikely that this report
indicating pesticide residues as cancer-causing agents would ever
have been published in, for example, the New England Journal of
Medicine, as its conclusions are at total variance with what we
know about the causes of human cancer.
For example, a report earlier this month from the National
Academy of Sciences recommended that we increase our consumption
of fruits and vegetables, and noted: ``A number of ... pesticides
.. cause cancer in laboratory animals. The committee found no
evicence to suggest that any of these compunds individually makes
a major contributions to the risk of cancer in humans.'' This
assesment, in my view, should have been even stronger in
defending the safety of pesticides.
Profound questions arise here about the responsibility of
newspaper editors and producers of talk and news shows in
distinguishing between legitimate scientific work and science by
press release.
o Scientific consensus. In the preface to its study, the NRDC
claims that it is and organization ``dedicated to protecting
public health.'' Yet I know of no leading cancer epidemiologist
in the U.S. who believes that apples, tomatoes, potatoes or
carrots contribute to this nation's cancer toll.
Cancer epidemiology is a scientific discipline that has
identified known causes of human cancer including cigarette
smoking, alcohol abuse (particularly in conjunction with
smoking), overexposure to sunlight, certain occupational and
medicinal agents, high-dose exposure to radiation, and specific
sexual and reproductive behavior. Putting consumption of fruits
and vegetables in the same list as smoking is a scientific
travesty.
Pesticides have been used in substantial amounts for nearly 50
years, and there is no evidence from analyses of cancer patterns
that pesticide residues are responsible for any cancers in adults
or children.
The Environmental Protection Agency sets tolerance levels for
pesticide residues in food. These tolerance levels are extremely
low, more than sufficient to protect the health of children and
adults. Further, a recent FDA study showed that most fruits and
vegetables consumed in this country have no detectable level of
residues, and that those that do are well below the legal levels.
o ``Carcinogen.'' The NRDC report is liberally sprinkled with
the word ``carcinogen''. A ``60 Minutes'' segment on the
report's findings featured a U.S. Representative, Gerry Sikorski
(D., Minn.), who talked of children dying in cancer wards.
Cancer is the second leading cause of death -- who would not be
terrified of carcinogens?
But the word ``carcinogen'' as used in the report is based
exclusively on animal experiments. Animal experiments are
critical to biomedical research, but it is scientifically
imprudent to assume that a chemical that at very high doses
causes lung tumors in mice is a hazard to humans at barely
measurable amounts.
If we were to make a national commitment to purge our food of
``carcinogens'' -- again defined as substances that in some
circumstances increase the risk of cancer in laboratory animals
-- we would first have to ask where these nasty little chemicals
are found. A growing number of scientists believe that perhaps
99% of the carcinogens we eat are found in natural foods.
Chemicals in table pepper (safrole), mushrooms (hydrazines), tea
(tannins) and bread (ethyl carbamate) cause cancer in laboratory
animals. But the NRDC turns its litigious head away from these
natural chemicals, and instead focuses on Alar (daminozide), a
man-made plant growth regulator that causes cancer in mice, but
only at levels four million times greater than any human
exposure.
We -- and our children -- eat thousands of carcinogens each
day, almost entirely compliments of Mother Nature. But there is
no evidence that the trace levels of these chemicals to which we
are exposed have any negative effect on our health.
o Health effects of the report's recommendations. Nature is
not benign to those who abandon science and technology. ``Back
to Nature'' meameans coexisting with vermin and insects and the
diseases they transmit. Insects can, for example, penetrate
grains, introducing a type of microbial damage that can make you
sick. So, not using agricultural chemicals or severely
restricting their use carries a risk of its own. Americans
should think twice before dismantling the agricultural system
that has given us the safest, most plentiful, inexpensive food
supply in the world.
But probably the gravest threat posed by an indictment of our
food supply is the attention in takes from the real health
challenges America faces today. The mother who throws out her
applesauce this morning may well be the same mother who neglects
to buckle up her child in a car this afternoon.
------------------------------------
[The following is not part of the original article.]
Daminozide (Alar) is not a carcinogen but one of its break-down
products (UMDH) is. The NRDC's carcinogen-potency figures for
UMDH, which are ten times greater than current estimates, come
from an EPA study that was discredited years ago. The EPA does
favor a ban on Alar. (Source: Barbara Rosewicz, ``Pesticide Risk
From Apples: Who's Right?'', Wall Street Journal, 10 March 1989,
p. B1:6)
More:
Bruce N. Ames, et al. ``Ranking Possible Cancinogenic Hazards'',
Science 236 (17 April 1987), pp. 271-280.
Edith Efron, The Apocalyptics (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1984), particlularly Part IV: ``Regulatory'' Science.
The following titles from the American Council on Science and
Health, 1995 Broadway, (18th Floor) New York, NY 10023-5860,
(212) 362-7044, unless noted otherwise, are $2 each:
Alan C. Fisher and Wendy Worth, Cancer In the United States: Is
There An Epidemic? (June 1988)
Leonard T. Flynn, Pesticides: Helpful or Harmful? (September
1988) ($3)
William R. Havender, Of Mice And Men: The Benefits and
Limitations of Animal Cancer Tests (March 1984)
William R. Havender, Leonard T. Flynn Does Nature Know Best?
Natural Carcinogens in American Food (July 1987)
* * *
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page