Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, February 26, 1995 TAG: 9502280033
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: STEVEN PRATT CHICAGO TRIBUNE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
If you are eating fresh fruits and vegetables - especially if you are following the American Cancer Society's ``five-a-day'' prescription - chances are you are consuming illegal pesticide residues, an environmental consumer group charges.
The Food and Drug Administration, the federal agency responsible for policing pesticide abuse, has grossly underreported the amount of produce that shows traces of banned pesticides and those that are strictly limited, according to the Environmental Working Group. The Washington consumer group's report, released in mid-February, is called ``Forbidden Fruit.''
The group made its own analysis of the FDA's pesticide data collected on 14,923 samples of 42 imported and domestic fruits and vegetables. It found illegal pesticides or excessive concentrations of pesticides in 3.1 percent of domestic fruits and vegetables, more than twice the 1.5 percent figure reported by the FDA for the same samples. The group's calculation for imported produce also was at odds with the FDA reporting: It found illegal pesticide use in 7.4 percent of the samples, while the FDA reported 4 percent.
John W. Jones, the FDA's strategic manager for pesticides and chemical contaminants, said the environmental group misinterpreted the FDA data but added that no matter how it was interpreted, ``there is absolutely no indication of any public health risk.''
The group's report called the FDA's ability to monitor and prevent pesticide abuse ``extremely feeble'' and recommended that the produce industry provide and pay for pesticide monitoring that would collect data at various points in the production cycle. The FDA then could analyze that data in much the same way it does with seafood inspection.
In Chicago, Robert Creamer, director of Illinois Public Action, an affiliate of the Environmental Working Group, said the FDA cannot ``assure us that everyday produce does not contain unsafe levels of pesticides or even pesticides that are banned for food use.'' Even if an industry-financed monitoring system would raise the price of produce, he said, it would be worth it.
``Pesticides'' is used to describe chemicals used in agriculture to control insects, rodents, weeds and fungus and thus increase crop yields. Some pesticides have been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals. The Environmental Protection Agency has set limits on how much of some chemicals are allowed on produce; others it has banned entirely.
Among the banned pesticides that popped up in the analysis are captan, a possible human carcinogen; chlorpyrifos, an insect spray and potential neurotoxin; and endosulfan, a chemical cousin of DDT that may mimic the female hormone estrogen in the human body. The FDA data shows that illegal pesticides are found most frequently in samples of green peas - especially those from Guatemala - pears, apple juice, blackberries and green onions. It also found above-average rates in hot peppers, green beans, strawberries and carrots, according to the report.
The FDA has also detected 10 or more different illegal pesticides on eight different crops, including carrots, strawberries, pears and cantaloupe, and it underreports the actual rate by 76 percent, the report said.
Creamer cautioned that people should not stop eating fruits and vegetables. Eating fresh produce still is a hedge against disease, he said.
But consumers should start pressuring food retailers to conduct their own tests of the produce they sell - as several California supermarket chains currently do - or at least list which pesticides are being used, Creamer said.
In explaining the discrepancies, Jones said the FDA tests about 20,000 produce samples each year. The vast majority of analytical tests show no traces of pesticides, but some do show tiny ``blips'' on the chromatograph chemical analyzer that may indicate pesticides are present at very minute levels. The FDA does not regard these as intentional violations or as significant enough for further testing.
The environmental group, however, counted every blip to come up with rates that are higher, he said.
``When talking about pesticides, it's important to realize that `illegal' is not necessarily `unsafe,''' said Carl Winter, a food toxicologist and director of the FoodSafe program at the University of California, Davis.
In general, the risks from pesticides - even those that are banned and even at levels higher than allowable - are very minor, he said.
``I can't say our risks are zero,'' he said, ``but they are of far less significance than the risk from microbes in food - such as salmonella and E. coli bacteria - and from a nutritional imbalance due to not eating enough fruits and vegetables, for instance.''
``They may even be false positives,'' he said.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN TRIM HERE)
Jones said the FDA's estimate of pesticide abuse was consistent with independent tests by the Department of Agriculture and by state agencies. It also is supported by the FDA's Total Diet Study, in which commercial food is purchased in retail markets, then analyzed after it is prepared as it would be in a home or restaurant. Those studies found pesticide intake to be less than 1 percent of the level deemed safe by the World Health Organization, he said.
The FDA admitted in a statement that its record-keeping and monitoring need improvement. It called the proposal for a pesticide-monitoring system financed by the produce industry a ``constructive recommendation.'' The Clinton administration is considering such a plan, along with measures to boost the FDA's authority to penalize violators, Jones said.
by CNB