Hot Potato War Flares Anew Over Sulfite Ban

In the latest flare-up in a hot potato war, some state health officials want to stop the treating of potato products with sulfites--chemical preservatives that in small amounts can cause severe reactions and even death in certain people, primarily asthmatics.

Because the amount of sulfites in treated potatoes varies widely and because sensitive individuals react to minute quantities, a team of physicians and toxicologists in the state Department of Health Services has recommended that the chemicals be banned from all potato products, according to a document obtained by The Times.

But on Tuesday, department director Dr. Kenneth W. Kizer said he has received conflicting advice from a second unit in the department, the food and drug branch.

He said the branch’s experts were unable to determine the amount of sulfites that pose a risk to health. Kizer also expressed concern about the economic impact of an outright ban.

Won’t Take Position

Because of the internal difference of opinion, Kizer said he will issue a report later in the week that will take no position on the controversy that has been smoldering for more than a year.

A year ago, a divided state Legislature turned to the Deukmejian Administration--and to Kizer’s department--for a recommendation on whether use of the chemicals on potatoes should be eliminated.

“I can’t, from a scientific point of view, say yes or no,” Kizer said in an interview.

He estimated that as many as 10% of the state’s 1 million asthmatics are sensitive to sulfites.

The use of sulfites in most fresh vegetables, to prevent discoloration and to slow wilting, has been outlawed in California since the start of the year. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration ban will go into effect nationwide on Friday.

But both state law and federal regulations have thus far exempted potato products, in part because of a lobbying effort by companies that cut and peel fresh potatoes for use in restaurants, schools and hospitals. The companies argue that proper labeling and the development of uniform treatment methods would reduce the health problem and they assert that a ban would destroy their industry.

‘Play Russian Roulette’

“It’s absolutely unconscionable to have people who go into restaurants unknowingly play Russian roulette with their health,” said Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D-Los Angeles), author of the new law that banned sulfites on most raw vegetables. Based on growing evidence of the potentially fatal effects of any product containing sulfites, Margolin wanted to go further and include potatoes in the prohibition.

But late in the 1985 legislative session, he watched as his bill was amended on the Senate floor to exempt potatoes. In a final compromise needed to get even a partial ban enacted--one that should assure consumers that salads are free of sulfites, Margolin settled for a study of the health effects of sulfite-treated spuds.

By March, the Department of Health Services had studied 151 different potato products. Two-thirds of the samples--102 of them--contained measurable levels of sulfites, some several hundred times as high as amounts known to cause health problems in susceptible individuals, chiefly asthmatics.

Those findings led the department’s community toxicology unit to call for the ban.

Generally, the large producers of frozen potato products, including french fries and hash browns, use no sulfites, according to Mary Custer, consumer safety officer for the FDA. Similarly, fast-food chains use sulfite-free products, she said.

She explained that generally it is not necessary to use sulfites to prevent discoloration in quick-frozen potato products.

But sulfites are used to prevent discoloration and to extend the shelf life of potatoes sold fresh. There are 10 to 12 companies in California that produce sulfite-treated potatoes for restaurants, hospitals and schools, said Rolf H. Horn, lobbyist for the National Coalition of Fresh Potato Processors, the group that has been leading the fight against a ban on sulfites in potatoes.

Horn’s group was successful in getting potatoes dropped from the 1985 legislation that banned the use of sulfites on raw vegetables. A few months later, the group donated $3,200 to the campaign committees of five senators who had backed the effort to amend Margolin’s bills to exempt potatoes.

The group gave a $1,200 political contribution to Sen. Ken Maddy (R-Fresno), who carried the crucial amendment exempting potatoes; and $500 each to Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier), Sen. Dan McCorquodale (D-San Jose), Sen. Edward R. Royce (R-Anaheim) and Sen. Henry J. Mello (D-Watsonville). All five are members of the nine-member Senate Health and Human Services Committee that would have to approve the sulfite ban on potatoes if Margolin pushes ahead in the next few weeks.

Reducing the Risk

Horn argued that labeling requirements and uniform manufacturing standards would reduce the risk to sulfite-sensitive individuals and prevent the destruction of an industry that employs 500 Californians and processes 6% of the state’s potato crop.

He added that the issue ought to be settled on the federal level and not by the state Legislature. The FDA’s Custer said that her agency will propose regulations for potato products, but she noted that it will take at least 11 months before they could be enacted.

Margolin said he does not want to wait. “We preceded the FDA action (on sulfites in fresh vegetables) by seven months, and I believe we saved lives because of that.”

The lawmaker said he is angry that the Deukmejian Administration has taken so long to produce its report on sulfites in potatoes--a delay that will make it extremely difficult for the Legislature to enact a sulfite-potato ban before adjourning at the end of the month.