Pretty Produce Is Under Fire : Agriculture: Pending legislation discourages use of pesticides in obtaining flawless fruits and vegetables.
The practice of using agricultural chemicals to obtain cosmetically perfect produce came under fire in Congress last week in Washington.
The Senate Agriculture committee approved a reform package that would require a modification of federal grading standards that currently rewards farmers for producing flawless fruit and vegetables. Often this commercially desirable appearance is the indirect result of pesticide usage.
The legislation, entitled the Agricultural Marketing Reform Act of 1990, was introduced by Sen. Wyche Fowler Jr. (D--Ga.) and is a portion of the 1990 Farm Bill.
Reaction to the vote was mixed. Industry trade associations remain opposed to the measure while consumer groups praised its passage in committee.
“Both consumers and farmers win with this important change in grading standards,” said Ellen Haas, executive director of Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, a Washington-based advocacy group. “Consumers will have the opportunity to buy nutritious and wholesome produce which has less pesticide residues. Farmers can (also) cut back on costly pesticide use and increase the markets for their produce.”
Haas estimated that between 10% to 20% of the chemicals used on produce are applied in hopes of maintaining cosmetic qualities.
A produce industry spokesman said that the Fowler Amendment was “unacceptable” and that its very premise was inaccurate.
“There are some things seriously wrong with the bill,” said John McClung, a vice president for United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Assn. in Alexandria, Va. “(The measure) subjects us to the criticism that we use pesticides for purely cosmetic purposes . . . Well, there is no way a pesticide can enhance a given piece of fruit or vegetable. We can’t make something attractive that isn’t attractive.”
McClung said there are no pesticides approved for use in this country simply for cosmetic purposes. The waxes applied to some thin-skinned items in order to retain moisture could be considered cosmetic compounds, he said, but this category was not addressed in the Fowler Amendment.
However, McClung did acknowledge that pesticides, by controlling insects, do prevent scarring or stress on produce that may be otherwise caused by the pests.
Concerns about using farm chemicals to improve the appearance of produce have been raised for some time. In a 1989 report on Alternative Agriculture, for instance, the National Research Council stated that U.S. Department of Agriculture’s regulations actually encouraged and rewarded chemical applications.
“Federally approved grading standards and marketing orders for fruits and vegetables usually allow few surface blemishes on fresh produce,” according to the council, which is a principal agency of the National Academy of Sciences. “Consequently, farmers use more pesticides to meet these standards (in order to) guarantee receipt of a top price . . . Cosmetic standards, however, often have no relation to nutritional quality, flavor or food safety. Furthermore, these standards discourage alternative pest control practices that may not be as effective in meeting their rigid criteria.”
However, industry groups believe that improved visual appearances have helped increase produce sales dramatically during the past few decades.
The Institute of Food Technologists recently issued a report entitled the “Quality of Fruits and Vegetables.” In the study, the Chicago-based group maintains that a reduction in chemical usage may actually hurt produce’s popularity.
“Visual quality may suffer in foods that have not been treated with pesticides,” says the report. “Consumers may not be willing to accept lower standards for bruising, off-color or even unseen insect parts if that’s the price for a decrease in pesticide usage.”
Shopping behavior, or actual consumer purchases, have not necessarily followed heightened public concerns about pesticide residue in foods. In fact, a Sacramento-based supermarket chain--Raley’s--recently discontinued offering organically grown produce because sales were sluggish at best.
The Institute of Food Technologists discussed this point, as well, in its recent report.
“Consumers want fresh products that are--besides visually appealing--nutritious, convenient, available year round, reasonably priced, yet totally free of . . . pesticides. Currently, shoppers can’t have one without excluding the other,” the report said.
Polling data provided by Public Voice indicated that, once educated on the subject, consumers are willing to accept produce with blemishes, if it means a corresponding reduction in chemical residues.
The Senate is expected to vote on the entire Farm Bill, including the Fowler Amendment, sometime early next month, according to Congressional observers.
