S G T PRECIS
lSlM
‘I w
ith visions of Alar dancing in their heads, the National Academy of Sciences throueh its National Research Council ( N k ) released in July a major study that questioned the safety of current levels of pesticides in foods and the health of children ( 1 ) . The report was quickly embraced by government officials who, nevertheless, repeatedly assured the public that the food supply is fundamentally safe. As a result, d i e the 1989 panic that erupted over possible increased cancer risks to children from the plant growth regulator Alar (daminozide) in apple products, this pesticide report generated little public outcry. “The major conclusion of this study,” said Philip Landrigan of New York City’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine and chair of the committee that wrote the report, “is that the federal government‘s decision-making process for pesticides does not pay sufficient attention to the protection of human health, especially the health of infants and children.” According to the report, what is needed is a new risk assessment analysis that “combines data on the kinds and quantities of foods eaten by children with data on the pesticide residues on those foods.” However, rather than document how pesticides harm children, the NRC report is largely a blueprint for further research. In a speech to the National Press Club, EF’A Administrator Carol Browner probably sum-
Pdcis articles are reports of meetings of unusual significance, international or national developments of environmental importance, significant public policy developments, and related items.
exists or when toxicity data applicable to children are lacking. The report also recommends a new and far more complex approach to calculating risk estimates. For instance, the experts not only separate children from adults but also warn that a one-year-old child differs from a four-year-old that diets differ by region and culture; and that children are exposed to pesticides from diverse sources such as soil, water, air, and lawns. A “detailed road map” for this sophisticated risk analysis is contained in the report, and the committee even has supplied software to EPA to implement the new approach. However, the data to implement this analysis in many cases are missing. The committee calls for food consumption surveys targeted at children, better pesticide residue data, studies on how food processCarol Browner ing affects pesticide levels, and more information on nonfood expothree, we don’t know what chil- sures to pesticides. To support dren’s exposure is because we don’t these research studies, the commitknow what children eat.” tee recommends that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stanSpecifics and avoidances dardize pesticide measurements Without sufficient data to accu- and that the data be collected in a rately assess risk, the report urges computer database. In addition, estimates of cancer the government to increase its safety margin by another factor of risk from pesticides should account ten. Currently, the level at which for the many more years in which animal models show no adverse ef- children could develop a cancer affects is divided by 100 to establish ter exposure compared to adults. the level that the government con- “Mathematical models for childsiders safe for humans. If studies hood cancer need to be more comshow an effect on the developing fe- plex than a linear relationship,” tus, this number is bumped to 1000. says Landrigan. Browner said that EPA would exThe committee believes that EPA should use the 1000 factor when- pand its screening program for all ever evidence of postnatal toxicity pesticides to include new or expanded toxicity tests aimed at neuromuscular, immune system, and endocrinology effects-functions BY ALAN NEWMAN
marized the report best when she said, “We don’t know enough about the dangers ofthe pesticides we use, and we need to find out more. We don’t know enough about the residues that remain on the food we eat, and we need to find out more. And
1742 Environ. Sd. Tednol.. VoI. 27, No. 9. 1993
e don’tknow enough about the residues that remain on the food we eat, and we need to find out more.))
W13-936x/93m927-1742$04.00/0@ 1993 American Chemical Society
b
o__ particularly at risn in aeveloping children. Browner also committed EPA along with the US. Department of Agriculture and the FDA to obtaining “a more accurate picture of the residues which end up on the dinner table, as well as more data about what foods are being eaten by different age groups, by region, by income level and by ethnic groups.” Moreover, she said that EPA would reestablish its incident-monitoring program-a system of reporting pesticide poisonings diagnosed in emergency rooms that was eliminated during the Reagan administration. Finally, she advocated the reduction of pesticide use by integrated pest management, sustainable agriculture, and unspecified changes in regulatory programs to stimulate new, safer pesticides. Browner said that existing programs will ensure the safety of imported foods. The pesticide report was commissioned in 1966 by Congress, which provided a narrow mandate. Consequently, the committee did not address some controversial policy matters such as the Delaney Clause (see ESbT, August 1993, p. 1466)or the economic effects of cutting back or eliminating pesticides that fail these stricter tests. The report authors also did not consider risks from naturally occurring toxins in
“i plants and microorganisms. And, despite reassurances about the safety of the food supply by members of the committee, the committee did not formally assess the overall safety of the food supply. Given the potentially explosive nature of the findings, there was surprisingly little controversy over the report. One indirect criticism of the report came from the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (Washington, DC), which almost preempted the NRC report with its own document ( 2 ) . Following the same tracks as the NRC report, the organization reached tougher conclusions: “millions of children” receive up to 35% of their lifetime dosage of some carcinogenic pesticides (e.g., captan, benomyl, and dicofol) by age five; infants and children regularly consume foods containing two or three pesticides per item; and FDA routinely underreports pesticide residues because of inadequate analysis. Although the Environmental Working Group also urged parents not to change children’s diets because of their findings, they support the implementation of strict healthbased standards (rather than factoring in economics and product availability) for pesticide residues on foods, the rapid institution of standards for “organically grown”
foods, and a voluntary program that would allow farmers to label foods “ultra-low” or “no-detected’’ pesticide residues. The group also wants to ban all pesticides now classified by EPA as known, probable, or possible carcinogens. The author of this competing report is a former project director of the NRC effort who is dissatisfied with the conclusions of that report.
Changing nature of pesticides The NRC report was prompted in part by a fundamental change in the nature of the pesticides applied to food crops. The organohalogen insecticides (e.g., DDT, dieldrin) that dominated agriculture 30 years ago have been replaced with organophosphates and carbamates. Because they are applied close to or after harvest, insecticides, along with fungicides, are the chief pesticides found in the food supply. At the same time, herbicide applications have dramatically increased. The NRC report points out that herbicides now account for 66% of all agricultural pesticides: they are primarily used on land planted with corn, soybeans, cotton, and wheat. In 1955 about 3% of corn and soybean acreage received herbicides: today that figure has jumped to more than 90%. According to Browner, overall Environ. Sci. Technol., VoI. 27,No. 9. 1993 1743
I The Analyst ... Research
A Compact, Quality, Single-Source Unit For Simple, Direct Sample Analysis
Developed by CDS Analytical, the premier source of sample preparation systems for GC, FT-IR, and MS research and environmental analysis, the EA 600 purge and trap system with attached GC and detector I S designed to meet your CDS Environmental specifications.
CIRCLE 4 ON READER SERVICE CARD
pesticide use has risen 250% since 1964. “We have made progress in getting dangerous pesticides off the market,” she said, adding that “we should be figuring out ways to use less pesticides.” Current pesticide use in U.S. agriculture stands at more than 800 million pounds annually. However, that number is dwarfed by the estimated additional 1.3 billion pounds of pesticides used in food distribution, forestry, gardening, and home pest control. As a result, children are constantly exposed to pesticides. The other source of concern centers on federal pesticide regulations. “The government’s current regulatory program takes a one-sizefits-all approach, even though children differ greatly from adults not only in size but also in metabolism and in what they eat,” asserts Landrigan. “Current risk assessments use a single number to represent the average exposure of the entire population to pesticides.” By separating children from adults and employing the approach to risk assessment recommended by the committee, the NRC report authors found that multiple exposures of organophosphates may be high enough for some children to develop symptoms of acute poisoning. (These pesticides inhibit cholinesterases which, in turn, affects the hydrolysis of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, leading to symptoms ranging from headaches to potentially fatal muscle spasms and coma.) On the other side of the coin, committee member Richard Jackson of California’s Department of Health Services warns that “The truism that children are more sensitive is not always true.” In the final analysis, the level of scrutiny that pesticides will face in the future will be certainly tightened. “We don’t need to choose between a good quality of life and safe food,” pledged Browner. “They are two sides of the same coin.”
References (I) “Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and
Children”; National Research Council; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1993. (2) “Pesticides in Children’s Food”; Environmental Working Group: Washington, DC, 1993. [Available from 1718 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20009.1
Alan Newman is an associate editor on the Washington staff of ES&T. 1744 Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 27, No. 9, 1993
