Letters: The pesticide debate

I was disheartened to read that, although 54 eminent scientists urged the EPA not to approve methyl iodide in 2007, they nonetheless approved it [“A Closer Look: Pesticides in strawberry fields,” June 28]. Now Mary-Ann Warmerdam, director of California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation, says that if used per their restrictions “it can be used safely.”

I’d like to invite Ms. Warmerdam to go pick strawberries for a few months when the fields have been poisoned with this chemical. I think we’ll get the same reaction that Erin Brockovich’s opposing counsel had when she invited them to drink the water derived from wells they tainted: “No, thank you.”

Well, Ms. Warmerdam, California should say “No, thank you” to introducing this poison into our farmers’ fields and poisoning anyone who breathes in the stuff. It’s time the burden of proof be put on the chemical companies as to the safety of their products. The precautionary principle — adopted by the European Union in 2006 — is long overdue in this country.

Nancy Stone

Los Angeles

•

Your article on methyl iodide was yet another example of how thoroughly controlled our country is by agricultural megacorps. Despite the well-known fact that this chemical is a life-threatening poison, we have one board after another approving its use. What does this tell us?

What it tells me is that we should remember the old adage, “Follow the money,” for money talks and all else walks, as we all should know by now. My hunch would be that if there were some way to examine the bank accounts, foreign and domestic, of the people who are committing this crime, you would find large deposits being made on a regular basis.

Just think about it. It’s just common sense!

Bud Stuart

Santa Barbara

•

It is painfully clear that the Health section needs to go in for a journalism check-up. Your hit piece on the new pesticide methyl iodide could have been a valuable “learning moment.” Instead, it is so one-sided it is in danger of falling over.

All the scientists are on one side of this issue and cited often! A lone bureaucrat is quoted to defend the chemical, and you can practically hear the author smirking, “That will free me from charges of bias.”

It doesn’t. One has to wonder why the reporter feels the need to be so heavy-handed. Does it reflect concern with the actual weight of a balanced look at the issue? And are there no editors, no one with a chance to suggest providing information from scientists who support a pesticide that has now been approved by two strict reviews?

We are told one reason newspaper circulation is in a free-fall is the availability of information on the Internet. In this case that is certainly true. I could have just gone to the Pesticide Action Network website if I wanted something I knew was so slanted. The newspaper used to make an effort to give information from both sides.

Scott Macdonald

West Hollywood

•

To Department of Pesticide Regulation Director Mary-Ann Warmerdam: It appears that the choice of 96 ppb [parts per billion] as a reasonable exposure limit for methyl iodide came about as a mean between the 0.8 ppb proposed by the independent scientific risk assessment group and the 193 ppb authorized by the EPA. There is no scientific basis for choosing a mean in this manner in this particular situation.

If a mean is to be selected, then — in acknowledgment of both chemistry and biology — it should be done on the logarithmic rather than the linear scale. On a logarithmic scale, the mean value would be some 12.4 ppb. This is one order of magnitude higher than the review committee recommended, and it is one order of magnitude lower than what the EPA recommends as a limit.

If “splitting the difference” was the motivation, then this is the only scientifically defensible option.

Siegfried Othmer

Woodland Hills

How Americans eat

As a dietitian with National Dairy Council who’s personally dedicated to helping Americans eat better to improve their health, I want to comment on the dairy recommendations discussed in “What the Experts Say Aout the Dietary Guidelines Report [June 28].

The Dietary Guidelines expert committee was clear that getting the recommended amount of dairy may help reduce the risk of certain diseases and promote good health. It’s important to note that the committee came to this conclusion via a thorough and independent review of the scientific evidence.

Recommendations for dairy are 3 cups/servings for those ages 9 and over and two low-fat or fat-free cups for children ages 2 to 8. Since Americans are consuming less than 60% of the recommended amount of dairy foods, the committee noted the need to promote increased dairy consumption to recommended amounts. The committee also stated that this is particularly important for children because good milk-drinking habits established in youth are more likely to carry forward into adulthood.

From a practical standpoint, from my experience as a registered dietitian, I know that dairy foods like milk, cheese and yogurt offer a delicious, convenient and cost-effective way to help both kids and adults meet their nutrient needs. You might be surprised to learn that milk is already the leading food source of calcium, potassium, phosphorous, magnesium, vitamin A, vitamin D and riboflavin in Americans’ diets.

Isabel Maples, National Dairy Council

Haymarket, Va.

•

“Shaping How Americans Eat was a good reminder of how eating habits are affecting our country, and it was useful to see some of the debates that affect interpretation of the report. I hope you do a follow-up article on the exercise aspect of the health equation and what trends are in process.

I have been a fitness instructor for 28 years, and I have noticed a significant graying of the students in my classes. The average age of aerobic students seems to be over 45 years of age, and when I do get twentysomethings in my classes, they seem to be the least capable of keeping up with the class.

Encouraging Americans to adjust their diets per nutritional guidelines is great, but making fitness cool again would do even more to reduce waistlines. Dr. Ornish’s suggestion on appealing to vanity was perhaps the most powerful statement in the article.

I was in Canada last week, and a friend read aloud the elevator panel, “Limit 18 Persons,” and we laughed when someone in the back of the elevator chimed in, “Or 10 Americans.”

Bill Gervasi

Ladera Ranch

•

Re: “Debate on Female Sexual Dysfunction Continues June 28: If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Here is a question: If a woman has “low” desire, whose problem is it? Why, for example, do we not question her partner’s “high” desire? Why is it “normal” to have the same level of desire as one’s partner?

Almost every couple has mismatched desire, a problem that they must work out together. Couples that do so successfully will never need medication. Couples that don’t may need sex therapy, not only to improve communication but to discover why sex is such a sticking point for them.

Finally, it is interesting that flibanserin is targeted toward women, since about half of the individuals in my sex therapy practice with “low” desire are, in fact, men. Is the manufacturer afraid of what might happen if men with “high” desire mistakenly get hold of the medication?

Stephanie Buehler, director, the Buehler Institute

Irvine

Our letters page highlights selected reader comments on articles recently published in Health.

All submissions are subject to editing and condensation and become the property of The Times.

Please e-mail health@latimes.com.