Pesticide Cancer Risk Downplayed : Food safety: Nature creates most carcinogens, not science or industry, FDA officials say. Environmentalists dispute the agency’s claims.
Federal officials have embraced a familiar food industry theme that’s designed to calm fears about pesticides by claiming that the cancer threat posed by natural compounds in food far outweighs any problems from synthetic chemicals.
Health officials now argue that most carcinogens present in the diet are the work of nature, not science or industry.
The strong emphasis on so-called natural cancer agents was clearly evident at a recent food safety conference in Washington sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.
Environmentalists maintain, however, that the government’s change of heart is a diversionary tactic intended to deflate criticism of how federal agencies have monitored pesticide use throughout the years.
“(Federal officials) want to justify the fact that pesticides have been a low priority, or concern, for them,” said Janet S. Hathaway, senior project attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington. “This is an effort to deflect attention from their record of rather lax regulations of pesticides.”
Indeed, at the recent food safety gathering, top officials from USDA and FDA virtually dismissed pesticides as a potential hazard in food. The campaign is bolstered by recent data indicating that only about 1% of the domestic and imported produce tested by FDA in 1989 showed evidence of illegal residues.
“Pesticides, with only a few exceptions, are being used appropriately in worldwide agriculture,” said Fred R. Shank, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
For several years, chemical and food industry trade groups have claimed that compounds such as hydrazines, nitrosamines, urethane and aflatoxins normally found in the food supply are more potent cancer agents than food additives or chemical residues.
Chief among these organizations is the American Council on Science and Health, a New York City-based group headed by Elizabeth Whelan. In fact, last November the council went so far as to publish a list of three dozen carcinogens, not including man-made substances, that may be present in the typical Thanksgiving dinner. The council’s position is based, in part, upon research conducted by Bruce Ames, a professor at UC Berkeley.
Only recently, however, did federal health officials begin adopting a similar theme.
Previously, USDA and FDA representatives countered critics of pesticide monitoring programs by citing data indicating as much as 65% of food tested annually showed no evidence of residues. They were also quick to point out that far more illnesses and deaths are caused by microbiological contaminants such as salmonella.
A turning point among Bush Administration health officials came when the FDA’s Robert J. Scheuplein recently released a report on food-borne carcinogenic risk.
Scheuplein, a toxicologist with the agency’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, maintains that “98.82%” of the cancer risk in the diet is from traditional foods, not pesticides.
“Ordinary food contains an abundance of carcinogenic initiators that, in totality, appear to dwarf all synthetic sources,” Scheuplein reported. “There is no good reason to assume that traditional food is benign (harmless).”
The basis for Scheuplein’s claim is that the public consumes vast quantities of traditional foods as opposed to minute amounts of synthetic compounds. Therefore, the exposure to natural toxins is much greater than to agricultural chemicals. Further, the naturally occurring toxins are present at levels much higher than those permitted by law for pesticides.
“There is a big difference between what experts think are risks and what the public thinks are risks,” Scheuplein said.
Food processing also adds potential harmful compounds to food. For instance, fermentation creates urethane, frying causes nitrosamines to form and broiling meat leads to development of mutagens.
“Epidemiological evidence shows that 22% of all deaths (in the United States) are from cancer,” said Jack C. Parnell, USDA deputy secretary. “And about a third of those may be attributed to dietary exposure. Science tells us that 98% of the carcinogens found in ordinary food are naturally occurring, while the remainder are from additives, pesticides or other man-made substances. FDA scientists conclude that the bulk of the dietary risk is from natural carcinogens.”
Hathaway, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that even if one was to accept the agency’s recent position on risk, the FDA has done nothing to protect the public from naturally occurring carcinogens.
“FDA does not have any programs to further identify and reduce the risk of natural carcinogens,” she said. “Still, they are saying ignore the other pesticides and environmental contaminants.”
A number of officials stated that because of public pressure--particularly since the controversy over Alar on apples in February, 1989--the federal government is being forced to increase spending on pesticide regulation when other problems present a greater threat to health.
“We need to put federal funding where it receives the maximum public health pay-off,” said James S. Benson, acting commissioner of FDA. “But we are forced to put money into pesticide (monitoring); and pesticide residues are not an acute or chronic health problem. Food-borne disease is more of a concern to us.”
Benson’s view was contradicted by Hathaway.
“Pesticides can pose acute or chronic health problems depending on the level in which they are present in food,” she said. “And it is unlikely that the potency of natural carcinogens is equal to, or worse than, synthetic pesticides. There are reasons why pesticides are effective and that’s because they’re fatal to the targeted pest.”
Still, Scheuplein in a recent FDA briefing insisted that the “hysteria” over pesticides as carcinogens created by groups such as NRDC has occurred for the wrong reasons.
“I’m not saying that we shouldn’t regulate farm chemicals but we should stop fooling around with pesticides and similar contaminants in food,” he said. “There is a greater risk of cancer in the diet (from natural compounds) that we still don’t fully understand.”
