article by melinda hemmelgarn, M.S., R.D. in communities alliance for responsible eco farming (CARE)
paper, fall 2013
'as a registered dietitian, i'm dedicated to understanding the relationships between food and health,
from the ground up.
so you can imagine my interest in a webinar (is this a seminar that occurs on the web?)
sponsored by the Produce for Better Health Foundation,
titled: 'pesticide residues: what to communicate to consumers'.
the webinar was advertised specifically to dietitians
and other food, nutrition and health professionals nationwide, who educate the public.
based on my 30+ years of experience and relationships with both farmers and research scientists
who study the effects of pesticides on soil, plants, animals and human health,
especially related to cancer risk and birth defects,
i feel confident in what i communicate to consumers about the issue.
in a nutshell: PRACTICE PRECAUTION.
AVOID pesticide residues when and if you can
because these endocrine disrupting, neuro toxic compounds
can have negative effects on our health lasting for generations.
children, pregnant and lactating women and women of child bearing age are most vulnerable to harm.
i also encourage consumers to question the outdated toxicological theory that
'THE DOSE MAKES THE POISON'.
in some cases, the adage holds true, as with alcohol for example.
the more we drink, the more toxic the effects.
but we are learning that extremely low doses of some chemical compounds
may actually be more biologically active than previously thought,
such as with the popular herbicide, Atrazine.
so if someone tells you that pesticide or other chemical residues are to low to be of concern,
question that assumption and ask to see the proof.
professionally, i'm required to back up my statements with'sound' science.
that means i must review a study's research methods;
i need to know who funded the study to identify a potential bias
and i want to know if the study has been repeated by independent researchers.
i also check references to see if a report leaves out critical studies that would influence conclusions.
THE 'HE SAID/SHE SAID' DILEMMA
unfortunately, most consumers don't have the time or skills to sort through studies published
in difficult to access journals.
as a result, we are often faced with the media's interpretation of 'he said, she said' arguments,
leaving us unsure of who or what to believe.
understandably, if an authority figure with stellar credentials from a prestigious university makes a statement
that pesticide residues are nothing to fear,
it's hard not to believe them.
it's easier and more comfortable to think that our food is safe
and authorities in government and universities are looking out for our best interests.
but as research becomes increasingly funded by private interests,
and government increasingly influenced by profit driven corporations,
it may be difficult for individuals to speak out and dispute the status quo.
when they do, their research is often unfairly discredited and their reputations tarnished.
GOOD REASON FOR PESTICIDE CONCERNS
one of my favorite resources that hardly receives any media attention is
'THE PRESIDENT'S CANCER PANEL REPORT ON REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL
CANCER 5RISK: WHAT WE CAN DO NOW'
the report makes clear recommendations to lower cancer risk, including:
*CHOOSE food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers
*EAT free range meat raised without antibiotics and growth hormones
*FILTER home tap or well water
*BECOME AN ACTIVE VOICE in your community;
DEVELOP and DISSEMINATE public health messages
to raise awareness of environmental cancer risks and
encourage people to reduce or eliminate exposures whenever possible.
the report emphasizes that 'children are at special risk for cancer due to environmental contaminant'
because of 'their smaller body mass and rapid physical development,
both of which magnify their vulnerability to known or suspected carcinogens...'
the report further explains how EPA approval of a pesticide does not guarantee safety:
'nearly 1400 pesticides have been registered (ie. approved)
by the Environmental protection agency (EPA) for agricultual and non agricultural use.
yet despite EPA approval,
'exposure to these chemicals has been linked to
brain/central nervous system, breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular and stomach
cancers,
as well as hodgkin and non hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma and soft tissue sarcoma.
pesticide exposed farmers, pesticide applicators, crop duster pilots and manufacturers
also have been found to have elevated rates of prostate cancer, melanoma, other skin cancers...
approximately 40 chemicals classified by the International agency for research on cancer (IARC)
as known, probable or possible human carcinogens,
are used in EPA registered pesticides now on the market'.
plus, because some of these chemicals are used
in several different pesticide products from different companies,
the total number of registered pesticide products containing known or suspected carcinogens
is far greater than 40.
according to the Report, the USDA's Pesticide data program samples and tests more than 80 types of
fruits, vegetables, nuts, meat, grains, dairy products and other foods for
residues of insecticides,m herbicides, fungicides and growth regulators.
in its most recent report on 11,683 samples,
only 23.1% of samples had 0 pesticide residues detected;
29.5% had one residue and the remainder had two or more..
the majority of residues were at levels far below EPA tolerances or limits on pesticide residues on foods.
however, the Report recognizes that
'the data on which the tolerances are based are heavily criticized
by environmental health professionals and advocates
as being inadequate and unduly influenced by industry'.
in addition, PESTICIDES ARE NOT TESTED FOR ADVERSE EFFECTS IN COMBINATION.
however, we would be wise to assume that there would be interactions between chemicals,
possibly having a synergistic (total effect of the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts)
and negative effect on our health.
REVEALING THE PRODUCE INDUSTRY'S VOICE
the Produce for better health foundation's webcast
features dr. carl keen, professor of nutrition and internal medicine at the university of california-davis.
keen will try to convince dietitians that conventionally raised fruits and vegetables
(those produced with pesticides and herbicides)
are not 'unsafe' or 'inferior' due to their pesticide residues.
he's going to try to convince nutritionists like me to
stop 'scaring' parents with the research showing increased risk for cancer and ADHD.
he's going to tell us that what matters most is that we all eat more fruits and vegetables,
regardless of how they are produced.
even though dr. keen has stellar credentials, we should question his message and who stands behind it.
with all due respect to dr. keen i'm going to encourage parents to err on the side of safety,
especially when it comes to their children's health.
and i'm going to continue to interview researchers on Food slueth radio
who are specifically studying the effects of pesticides on our environment and public health.
if the issue of COST comes up, as it always does,
i want to help consumers understand the concept of 'full cost accounting'.
in other words, look beyond the price at the register.
CONSIDER how much cancer and birth defects cost society
or the cost to taxpayers to clean up polluted water.
it's likely safe to assume that we all know farmers and farmers' family members
who have lost their lives prematurely to cancer.
i don't want any more farmers to fall ill because they think they need to use pesticides
to 'feed the world'.
by design and for power, influence and convenience,
the Produce for better health foundation has formed partnerships with respectable health organizations,
such as the Centers for disease control and prevention to help disseminate their message
that eating more fruits and vegetables is all that really matters.
in addition to reaching nutrition educators on webinars,
part of the Foundation's communication game plan includes using social media to reach out to moms directly.
with all the data that we have accumulated about the risks of pesticides to
farmers, children, public health and the environment,
i have to wonder:
why wouldn't the Foundation join forces to produce and promote more organic fruits and vegetables
and agro ecological farming methods?
the answer to this question may become evident
if we look into the foundation's list of donors, sponsors and board of trustees,
which include syngenta (makers of atrazine),
bayer crop science which produces a long list of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides
and monsanto vegetable seeds.
as farmers, citizens, consumers, parents and land stewards
LET'S SPEAK OUT.
let's give the president's report more air play and social media time.
bring the report's conclusions to your organization's next meeting or newsletter.
then tell your own personal stories.
stories from individual organic and agro ecological farmers can beat any madison ave. ad campaign,
because your stories are genuine.
and consumers are hungry to hear from you.
in the words of author, biologist and environmentalist, sandra steingraber:
'i believe it is time for a new human experiment.
the old experiment..is that we have sprayed pesticides which are inherent poisons..
throughout our shared environment.
they are now in amniotic fluid.
they're in our blood.
they're in our urine.
they're in our exhaled breath.
they are in mothers' milk..
what is the burden of cancer that we can attribute to this use of poisons in our agricultural system?
..we won't really know the answer until we do the other experiment,
which is to take the poisons out of our food chain,
embrace a different kind of agriculture and see what happens.
you can listen to melinda hemmelgarn on Food Sleuth radio on line: www.kopn.org.
you can reach her at: foodsleuth@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment