VIEWPOINT : Do Present Pesticide Rules Assure Safety? : <i> Watermelon Case Showed System’s Flaws </i>

It was no Fourth of July picnic. Hundreds of Californians became ill after eating watermelon, and the wave of illnesses was linked to the toxic pesticide aldicarb, which was found to have tainted part of California’s watermelon crop. Subsequently, the state Department of Food and Agriculture ordered about 10 million melons--one-third of the state’s 1985 crop--destroyed.

Agribusiness and chemical-industry representatives insist that the problem was caused by an isolated case of pesticide misuse, but it actually is part of a larger problem. This summer’s case illustrates some of the larger failings of pesticide manufacturers and of California’s pesticide regulatory system, which does not adequately protect the public or farm workers from harmful exposures to pesticides in food, water or even the workplace.

California leads the nation in agricultural production; it also leads the nation in the use of highly toxic pesticides. The future of California agriculture depends on a tough pesticide regulatory program that will protect the industry as well as people. The watermelon case vividly demonstrates that the present system does not pass muster.

Most Acutely Toxic Pesticides

Aldicarb and the metabolites that form after application, are among the most acutely toxic pesticides. A drop of active ingredient in the system of an adult would be a fatal dose. Although sold in a safer granular form, only a few parts per million caused the recent illnesses from tainted melons. Yet, the decision to use the pesticide apparently came without knowledge of its potential to contaminate and persist for years in ground water, without a practical means to monitor for its toxic metabolites in food and without adequate regard to the incredible hazards of manufacturing it.

The failure of pre-market testing to identify the hazards, and the failure of post-market surveillance is typical of California’s existing pesticide system.

Today, the hazards of numerous other pesticides have been uncovered, yet the regulatory review process drags on. Those pesticides--and their consequences--are tomorrow’s headlines.

In the last month, at least four farm worker crews in rural California were acutely poisoned with pesticide residues while harvesting crops. As in the watermelon case, these residue poisonings were either caused by illegal acts, or by legal applications of pesticides that are far more persistent than the manufacturer claims. Unlike the melon case, there is no public outcry, and no threat to “nail” violators.

Legislation that could prevent some of the worker residue poisonings is opposed by several agribusiness groups. The proposed legislation would simply require fields to be posted with signs warning workers to keep out during the danger period after a pesticide is sprayed.

The posting program, which has been tested in Monterey County for several years, has been so successful that many growers based in Monterey have implemented posting throughout all of their operations in California, and other states. They see the sign-posting program as “cheap insurance” to avoid accidental residue poisonings of workers.

Knee-Jerk Ideological Position

Given the practical experience and endorsement to Monterey growers, opposition to posting seems to reflect more of a knee-jerk ideological position, than a business or economic one.

The watermelon case has prompted calls for tougher enforcement of pesticide laws. But, enforcement has been delegated to the county agricultural commissioners, who have never been able to reconcile their role of promoting agriculture to that of regulating it. A grower tempted to use a pesticide illegally has learned from previous worker poisoning cases that the threat of detection and punishment is virtually non-existent. Such a system can inspire little confidence in consumers, who eat the food that the workers are picking.

The current pesticide system not only fails to protect consumers and workers, but it also fails to protect the economic interests of growers. Assuming that pesticide use increases yield, we must also acknowledge that such use does not necessarily increase profits for producers of a commodity that is already in surplus, especially if the pesticide is expensive and dangerous.

In California law, pesticides are called “economic poisons.” During the past 35 years, the marketplace has been saturated with highly toxic pesticides that have not been adequately tested or controlled. Last month’s watermelon poisonings should be seen as an opportunity to identify the failures of the industry and the regulatory system.