EDITOR'S PAGE
Pesticides: costs versus benefits This C&EN issue carries a forum in print on the status of the assessment of the health risks of pesticides. Not surprisingly, it reflects the highly contentious nature of the subject. As the chemical industry points out, pesticides have brought the U.S. the most abundant, wholesome, reliable, safe, and cheap food supply in the world. But charges persist that pesticide use can involve sizable risks in terms of residues on food, workplace exposure at the plant and on the farm, and damage to wildlife and the environment. Contributing to the debate from the scientific perspective are Bruce N. Ames of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleague Lois Swirsky Gold of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and James E. Huff and Joseph K. Haseman of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Ames and Gold argue that any health danger from synthetic pesticide residues on food must be placed in perspective with the parallel threat from a 10,000-times greater exposure to the natural pesticides in fruits and produce. They also argue that basing pesticide regulations on the results from testing chemicals for carcinogenicity at neartoxic doses in rodents is poor policy and poor science. Huff and Haseman contend that exposure to some synthetic pesticides may represent a real carcinogenic hazard for humans, that rodent testing is essential in identifying possible hazards, and that attacks on such testing are being made only by an extreme fringe of the scientific community. Will D. Carpenter, a vice president of Monsanto Agricultural Co., stresses the enormous benefits of pesticides. He raises the question of the health hazards from produce grown without the benefit of pesticides and possibly invaded with disease and contaminated with insect parts or weed seeds. And he stresses the commitment of chemical firms to the highest degree of responsibility for their products and practices. J. P. Myers and Theo Colborn of the W. Alton Jones Foundation complain that the focus of both this C&EN forum and of pesticide regulation on the link between residues on food and cancer is far too narrow. It detracts from a full evaluation of the impact of pesticides on human health, wildlife, and the environment. Three spokesmen for the Environmental Protection Agency state that the U.S. does not face an imminent public health problem fron* pesticides and that the agency's approach to regulation is, if not perfect, at least sound and improving. The bottom line on the forum is that pesticides and their regulation is a subject with a lot of grays and only a few blacks and whites. One white is the contribution of pesticides to the incredibly high productivity of U.S. agriculture. One big gray is how the chemical industry and community handle the periodic concerns that erupt over pesticide safety. The best approach must be dispassionate, open, and case-by-case examination of each charge, however irrationally it may be presented. Arguments—whatever their scientific merit—that, for instance, suggest it is foolish to be concerned about a synthetic pesticide residue because the natural pesticides in a serving of broccoli may represent a higher risk should be used with caution. First, the public neither believes them nor considers them relevant. Second, they can't be proved. Nobel Laureate Roald Hoffmann made a related point in his Priestley Medal address last year when he said, "If someone comes before you verbalizing anxiety over a chemical in the environment, don't harden your hearts and assume a scientific, analytical stance. Open your hearts, think of one of your children waking in the night from a nightmare of being run over by a locomotive. Would you tell him or her, 'Don't worry, the risk of being shot by a crack addict is greater7?" Michael Heylin Editor
Views expressed on this page are those of the author only and not necessarily those of ACS
January 7, 1991 C&EN 5
