State and Municipal Health Department Requirements for Use of Common Residual Insecticide Sprays EDWARD L. HOLMES and LLOYD J. SALATHE
Downloaded by UNIV OF SYDNEY on April 2, 2018 | https://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1950 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1950-0001.ch007
American Institute of Baking, Chicago, III.
A questionnaire requesting the regulations applicable to the use of DDT and chlordan in food-manufacturing establishments was sent to 244 city and state health departments. It yielded 188 or 75% replies, 164 or 87% of which revealed the absence of any regulations of use of these products. Four state and twenty city health departments reported specific regulations. No regulatory actions were reported as resulting from the use of residual sprays and no instance of an injury or unfavorable results directly attributable to the use of residual sprays was reported. DDT and chlordan sprays may be used legally under carefully controlled conditions where there is no possibility of the food product becoming contaminated, except in Tennessee.
T h e r e is much confusion among food manufacturers concerning municipal and state restrictions on the use of D D T and chlordan residual sprays i n their plants. The attitude of the Federal Food and D r u g Administration revolves basically upon two sections of the federal law: Section 402(a), " A food shall be deemed to be adulterated if i t bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious s u b s t a n c e . . o r " i f i t bears or contains any added poisonous or added deleterious substance which is unsafe within the meaning of Section 406 " The applicable portion of Section 406 is : " A n y poisonous or deleterious substance added to any food, except where such substance is required i n the production thereof or cannot be avoided b y good manufacturing practice, shall be deemed to be unsafe for the purposes of the application of Clause 2 of Section 402(a) ; but when such substance is so required or cannot be so avoided, the administrator shall promulgate regulations . . .. " N o valid argument can be presented alleging that D D T and chlordan spray i n manufactured food products cannot be avoided. Therefore, this requires an interpretation of the Federal Food and D r u g viewpoint to be that no D D T or chlordan will be tolerated i n a manufactured food product. On the other hand, nothing i n this federal act prohibits the use of D D T and chlordan sprays, provided they do not actually contaminate the product. B u t i n addition to considering the federal viewpoint, food manufacturers must also follow state and municipal regulations. T o determine the attitude of such agencies, 244 questionnaires were sent to all state health departments and to health departments of cities whose population exceeds 50,000. The inquiries were : 1. Does your department have any regulations or restrictions concerning the use of residual sprays i n food manufacturing establishments? 2. Name the residual sprays regulated. 3. Describe briefly the type of regulation. 4. Have these laws or regulations actually been invoked i n any regulatory action? 25
AGRICULTURAL CONTROL CHEMICALS Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1950.
26
ADVANCES IN CHEMISTRY SERIES
5. H a s your department any record of injury or experience with unfavorable effects resulting from the use of these materials i n food manufacturing establishments? 6. If you have not done so already, are you considering issuing any regulations for the use of these products? Of the 188 replies received, 158 stated that these agencies have no regulations governing the use of D D T and chlordan, but 38 added that they are considering the issuance of such regulations. Presumably, each department i n this group of 158 depends upon the "standard adulterations clause," embodied i n most food laws, which prohibits the presence of any poisonous, deleterious, filthy, or decomposed substance i n a food product, as the means of regulating the use of residual sprays.
Downloaded by UNIV OF SYDNEY on April 2, 2018 | https://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1950 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1950-0001.ch007
Control of Residual Sprays Of the thirty departments which state they do have regulations controlling the use of residual sprays, six specifically stated that they rely upon the standard adulteration section of their food law. The remaining 24 agencies, including four state departments, have the following regulations: The state of California has a spray residue law (Agricultural Code, Section 1011) which sets tolerances for certain toxic substances including D D T . I n addition, the use of a l l residual sprays i n food manufacturing establishments is prohibited if its use can be avoided b y good manufacturing procedures (California Health and Safety Code, Section 6471). Administratively, a l l such materials are viewed with disfavor except those which have been proved harmless. The cities of Berkeley, L o n g Beach, San Jose, Glendale, Pasadena, and Sacramento follow the state regulations. California apparently permits the use of D D T and presumably other residuals under carefully controlled conditions, as evidenced by the existence of a California State Department of Public Health poster entitled "Use of D D T i n Food Establishments." This poster suggests that D D T be employed under carefully controlled conditions, which include the use of a nonmisting compressed air spray, limited to wetting surfaces remote from food supplies, utensils, and open flames under adequate ventilation. The oil solutions must not be allowed to remain i n contact with the skin. Although Colorado relies on standard contamination laws, the city and county of Denver specifically limit the use of residual sprays to those conditions i n which foodstuffs, utensils, and equipment are covered and protected. M i s t i n g sprays may not be used i n food preparation areas but are permitted i n dining rooms of eating establishments. Indianapolis regulates the use of D D T b y requiring that food and utensils be protected during spraying. This is required under the authority vested i n the health officer to regulate the use of harmful substances, including residual sprays. In Wichita, K a n . , residual sprays m a y be used after notifying the C i t y Health Department and taking protective measures approved b y the health department. Detroit, M i c h . , controls the use of D D T b y a regulation which requires that a l l food be removed from the area being sprayed. Kansas C i t y , M o . , Health Department restricts permission for the use of residual sprays to D D T until further studies have been made. Nevada's Department of Health prohibits the use of sprays on a l l surfaces with which the food product may come i n contact. This includes even pyre thrum sprays. I n Charlotte, N . C , a l l residual sprays are regulated, i n that they m a y be used only after establishments have closed for the day. A l l food must be protected during the spraying operation. The Portland, Ore., Bureau of Health prohibits the use of toxic chemicals that might come i n contact with food or food surfaces. The New Y o r k State Department of Agriculture and Markets relies on the standard adulteration section of its law, but additionally advises that the department is "very fussy" regarding the use of poisonous material i n food-handling establishments, particularly where poisons might come i n contact with the food. I n New Y o r k C i t y the standard adulteration section also applies and additional requirements are aimed at offering protection to the operator during the spraying project. Akron, Ohio, permits the use of " D D T or other efficient and safe insecticide . . . i n and around the premises . . . of food-selling establishments and, when used, all food shall be so protected that it will not be contaminated. . . . " AGRICULTURAL CONTROL CHEMICALS Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1950.
HOLMES AND SALATHE—STATE AND MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS
27
Downloaded by UNIV OF SYDNEY on April 2, 2018 | https://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1950 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1950-0001.ch007
The city of H a m i l t o n , Ohio, considers that a l l these substances are regulated under its law, which forbids the use of poisonous substances where persons, animals, or fowl may be affected. Tennessee's Department of Agriculture prohibits the use of D D T because its Food and D r u g L a w considers a food adulterated if i t m a y have become contaminated. This is possible, i t is alleged, when D D T is used. Knoxville's Health Bureau, on the other hand, permits the use of residual sprays, provided the food is "protected from contamination, and the food must be pure and wholesome." The Dallas, Tex., Health Department permits the use of D D T and chlordan, under the restriction that i t not come i n contact with food or utensils. The Milwaukee, Wis., Health Department regulates the use of D D T , chlordan, and the gamma isomer of benzene hexachloride b y permitting their use only when food, food working surfaces, and equipment are covered during the spraying process so as to prevent spray from being deposited thereon. I n each of the above instances, except the state of Tennessee, the regulations are designed to restrict the use of residual sprays i n such a way that they will not contaminate the food. This is a positive approach, with the same viewpoint as those departments which consider their adulteration law as controlling. The noted exception may well be based on a misunderstanding aimed at restricting the indiscriminate spraying of materials containing residual sprays i n a fog or mist, as is the common practice with the harmless type of sprays, essentially pyrethrum. The proper application of residual sprays contemplates the use of nonmisting, nondripping spray heads directed at nonproduct zone surfaces, which accomplishes the job more efficiently than a paint brush. A s a matter of fact, the Federal Food and D r u g Administration has recently been quoted as frowning upon the use of D D T i n dairy barns. This has been taken as a discouraging indication b y those interested i n the use of residual sprays. However, i t is almost certain that this opinion contemplates use under conditions peculiar to dairy barns. N o state or city had actually taken any regulatory action except Tennessee, where the food products i n two establishments were condemned, presumably after a residual spray had been applied. The details of the spraying were not given. In reply to the request for a record of injury or experience involving unfavorable effects from the use of these materials, there were several nonspecific comments but no definite instances of ill effects.
AGRICULTURAL CONTROL CHEMICALS Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1950.
