Philip Morris
Be Most Wary of Nature's Own Pesticides
Fields
- Author
- Ames, B.N.
- Area
- LOGUE,MAYADA/OFFICE
- Type
- NEWS, NEWS ARTICLE
- Site
- N426
- Named Organization
- Epa, Environmental Protection Agency
- FDA, Food and Drug Administration
- Natural Resources Defense Council
- FDA, Food and Drug Administration
- Request
- Stmn/R1-072
- Document File
- 2025545619/2025546382/Harvard University Office of
- Continuing Education Short Course Program Harvard School
- of Public Health
- Continuing Education Short Course Program Harvard School
- Master ID
- 2025545673/6381
Related Documents:- 2025545673-6381 Risk Analysis in Occupational and Environmental Health 910904 - 910906
- 2025545684 Telephone Locations and Protocol
- 2025545689-5696 Risk Assessment for Carcinogens: A Comparison of Approaches of the Acgih and the Epa
- 2025545697 Hps Newsletter Interview with A Risk Expert
- 2025545698-5711 Science and Its Limits: the Regulator's Dilemma
- 2025545713-5721 Risk / Benefit Analysis
- 2025545722-5725 Risk Management Commentary for Dr. D. Allan Bromley Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
- 2025545726-5729 Risk Assessment and Comparisons: An Introduction
- 2025545750-5792 Risk Assessment of Chemical Carcinogens: Is It Time for A Change?
- 2025545795-5799 Tools of Risk Analysis Applications of Epidemiology
- 2025545800-5810 Notice of Intended Changes - Benzene
- 2025545811-5822 Epidemiology in Risk Assessment for Regulatory Policy
- 2025545824-5850 Risk Analysis in Environmental and Occupational Health Use of Animal and Other Data As Predictors of Human Risk
- 2025545851-5871 Risk Analysis in Environmental and Occupational Health Uncertainties in Predicting Human Risks
- 2025545872-5881 How Do Cancer Risks Predicted From Animal Bioassays Compare with the Epidemiologic Evidence? the Case of Ethylene Dibromide
- 2025545882-5887 Use of Biological Assays in Short-Term Assessment of Inhaled Substances
- 2025545888
- 2025545889-5891 Risk Analysis in Environmental and Occupational Health Are Your Mushrooms Safe to Eat?
- 2025545892-5899 the Rat As An Experimental Animal
- 2025545901-5907 Non-Cancer Endpoints
- 2025545910-5939 Cancer Facts & Figures - 890000
- 2025545940-5941 Cancer Facts & Figures - 890000
- 2025545942-5944 Get - the - Lead - Out Guru Challenged A Decade-Old Scientific Argument Over the Effects of Low-Level Lead on Iq Turns Nasty Following Allegations of Misconduct
- 2025545945-5948
- 2025545949-5958 the Question of Thresholds for Radiation and Chemical Carcinogenesis
- 2025545959-5980 Are There Thresholds for Carcinogenesis? the Thorny Problem of Low-Level Exposure
- 2025545981-5990 Perspectives on Comparing Risks of Environmental Carcinogens
- 2025545991-5998 Acceptable Cancer Risks: Probabilities and Beyond
- 2025546000-6011 Ideas in Pathology Pivotal Role of Increased Cell Proliferation in Human Carcinogenesis
- 2025546012-6017 Cell Proliferation in Carcinogenesis
- 2025546019-6027 the Role of Expert Judgement in Risk Analysis
- 2025546029-6039 the Respiratory Tract As A Route of Exposure
- 2025546040-6045 the Respiratory Tract As A Portal of Entry for Toxic Particles
- 2025546047-6062 Limitations to the Use of Employee Exposure Data on Air Contaminants in Epidemiologic Studies
- 2025546063-6083 Benefit - Cost Analysis of Environmental Regulation: Case Studies of Hazardous Air Pollutants
- 2025546086-6089 Legislative and Regulatory Aspects of Risk
- 2025546090-6099 Connecticut's Dioxin Ambient Air Quality Standard
- 2025546100-6103
- 2025546105 Annals of Radiation Calamity on Meadow Street
- 2025546106 Caution Urged When Using Insect Repellents
- 2025546116 Volatile Organics and Inorganics Action Levels 900400
- 2025546134-6135 Summary of Radon Test Results of the Household Testing Program
- 2025546141-6145 Introduction to Discussion Sessions
- 2025546146-6149 Risk Assessment in Environmental and Occupational Health Risk of Alar (Daminozide)
- 2025546150-6160 Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children's Food
- 2025546161-6162 Pesticides, Risk, and Applesauce
- 2025546163-6168 Daminozide Special Review Technical Support Document - Preliminary Determination to Cancel the Food Uses of Daminozide
- 2025546169 Daminozide / Udmh
- 2025546170-6172 the Relative Risk of Daminozide (Alar / Kylar) Use
- 2025546174-6175 A Movie Star Pares the Apple Industry
- 2025546176-6183 Summary of Toxicology Data on Daminozide and Udmh
- 2025546184-6194 Attachment I Graphs of Data From NCI / Ntp 83 Daminozide
- 2025546195-6196
- 2025546197-6202 Daminozide Special Review Technical Support Document - Preliminary Determination to Cancel the Food Uses of Daminozide
- 2025546203-6224 Regulatory Decision - Making Under Uncertainty: the Case of Alar
- 2025546226 Epa Moves to Reassess the Risk of Dioxin Urged on by the Scientific Community, Epa Is Developing A New Model for Estimating Dioxin's Risk
- 2025546227 US Government Orders New Look at Dioxin the Environmental Protection Agency Is Evaluating Data From the Past Decade That Suggest Dioxin's Toxicity May Be Overestimated. A Risk Assessment Model Based on Biological Mechanism Is Being Drawn Up.
- 2025546228-6235 Dioxin Toxicity: New Studies Prompt Debate, Regulatory Action New Data on Dioxin's Effect on Humans, A Clearer Picture of the Cellular Events It Precipitates, and New Animal Toxicity Studies May Provide Epa with A Firm Basis for Regulation
- 2025546236-6250 the Regulation of Gene Expression by 2,3,7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin
- 2025546251-6253 Dioxin Risks Revisited Armed with A New Understanding of How Dioxin Works on the Molecular Level, A Number of Scientists Are Challenging Epa to Change the Way It Does Risk Assessment
- 2025546255-6258 Lead Toxicity Case Study for Short Course on Risk Analysis in Occupational and Environmental Health 910904 - 910906
- 2025546259-6267 Lead
- 2025546268-6275 Lead in Bone: Implications for Toxicology During Pregnancy and Lactation
- 2025546276-6281 the Long-Term Effects of Exposure to Low Doses of Lead in Childhood An 11 - Year Follow-Up Report
- 2025546282-6285
- 2025546298-6321 Review 890000 Alice Hamilton Lecture Lead and Human Health:Background and Recent Findings
- 2025546323-6348 Traps and Errors in Risk Analysis
- 2025546349-6356 Health Risks the Perception of Reality and the Realty of Perception
- 2025546357-6362 Communicating Risk Under Title III of Sara: Strategies for Explaining Very Small Risks in A Community Context
- 2025546363-6368 Industrial Risk Perceptions
- 2025546369-6370 Too Many Rodent Carcinogens: Mitogenesis Increases Mutagenesis
- 2025546371-6373 Has Risk Assessment Become Too 'conservative'?
- 2025546374-6378 Health and Safety Risk Analyses: Information for Better Decisions
- 2025546379-6381 Telling Reporters About Risk Dealing with Reporters Needn't Be the Least Agreeable Part of the Job.
- Author (Organization)
- Los Angeles Times
- Niehs, National Institute of Environmental Health Services/Sciences
- Uc Berkeley
- Niehs, National Institute of Environmental Health Services/Sciences
- Litigation
- Stmn/Produced
- Characteristic
- EXTR, EXTRA
- Date Loaded
- 24 May 1999
- UCSF Legacy ID
- plp02a00
Document Images
"
,-q. . .._. -- 1To>sAttgele~(~IttneB Monday, February 27, 1989/Part 11
Be Most Wary of Nature's Own Pesticides
R~ RA7,tiaV ,.~t,i~iva~5
campaign about tiny traces of man-made
pesticides, plant breeders are active in
The bad news is that our plant foods developing varieties that are naturally pest
contain carcinogens. Carrots, comfrey tea, resistant. However, the primary way plant
celery, parsley, parsnips, mushrooms, cab-
bage, Brussels sprouts, mustard, basil, .
fennel, orange and grapefruit juices, pep-
per, cauliflower, broccoli, raspberry and
pineapple contain natural pesticides that
cause cancer in rats or mice and that are
present at levels ranging from 70 ppb
(parts per billion) to 4,000,000 ppb-levels
that are enormously higher than the
amounts of man-made pesticide residues In
plant foods.
All plants produce their own natural
pesticides to protect themselves against
fungi, insects and predators such as man.
Tens of thousands of these natural pesti-
cides have been discovered, and every
species of plant contains its own set of
toxins, usually a few dozen. When plants
are stressed or damaged, such as during a
pest attack, they inerease their natural
pesticide levels many fold, occasionally to
levels that are acutely toxic to humans.
Only a tiny percentage of these natural
pesticides has been tested in animal cancer .
tests, but of those that have been tested,
the percentage that turns out to becarcino-
genic Is about as high as for man-made
pesticides (about 30%). The same appears
to be true for natural teratogens (agents
that cause birth defects). It is highly
probable that almost every plant product in
the supermarket contains natural carcino-
gens and teratogens.
The pesticides that we are eating are
99.99% all natural (we eat 10,000 times
more natural than man-made pesticides).
Most natural pesticides, like man-made
pesticides, are relatively new to the mod-
ern diet, because most of our plant foods
were brought to Europe within the last 500
years from the Americas, Africa and Asia
(and vice versa).
In response to the environmentalist
breeders are able to increase natural
resistance to pests is to breed plants with
increased levels of natural pesticides. It
should be no surprise, then, that a newly
introduced variety of insect-resistant pota-
to had to be withdrawn from the market,
due to acute toxicity to humans caused by
much higher levels of the teratogens
solanine and chaconine than are normally
present in potatoes. Similarly, a new
variety of insect-resistant celery recently
introduced in the United States had to be
withdrawn after it caused widespread
outbreaks of dermatitis due to a concentra-
tion of carcinogens at 9,000 ppb rather than
the usua1900 ppb.
Many more such cases are likely to crop
up-they are undetected as yet due to lack
of immediate observable effects-because
there is a fundamental trade-off between
nature's pesticides and man-made pesti-
cides.
The good news is that it now appears
from much recent work on the mechanisms
of carcinogenesis that the risk of cancer is
negligible from carcinogens at levels far
below the maximum tolerated dose given to
rats and mice in cancer trials. I am not even
very concerned about the cancer risk from
allyl isothiocyanate, a natural carcinogen
present in cabbage at 40,000 ppb and in
brown mustard at 900,000 ppb, because I,
along with most other leading scientists,
am very skeptical about all of these
worst-case, low-dose extrapolations from
high -dose animal tests.
What must be emphasized is that "the
dose makes the poison." For example,
consuming five alcoholic drinks per day is
clearly a risk factor in humans for cancer,
and in pregnant women for giving birth to
mentally retarded babies. However, there
is no convincing evidence as yet that
consuming one alcoholic drink per day is
dangerous. As another example, sunlight
can cause cancer,_but the evidence sug-
gests that the carcinogenic danger is from
repeated sunburns. In fact, ultraviolet light
at low doses induces a tan, which protects
against the burning of skin by ultraviolet
light.
My own estimate for the number of cases
of cancer' or birth defects caused by
man-made pesticide residues in food or
water pollution-usually at levels hun-
dreds of thousands or millions of times
below that given to rats or mice-is close to
zero.
The Food and Drug Administration and
the Environmental Protection Agency are
doing an adequate job of protecting our food
supply from carcinogenic contaminants
and are much more credible than the
activists lawyers with the Natural Re-
sources Defense Council who spend their
time wooing the media with scientifically
unfounded claims about the dangers of
pesticides, but who have never assembled a
knowledgeable board of scientific advisers.
The cost to the American public from such'
misplaced efforts is enormous, both in
terms of a very large hidden tax on our
economy and in terms of lives lost by
diverting our resources from real public -
health problems.
In order to minimize cancer and the
other degenerative diseases of aging
(which are associated with our constantly
increasing life expectancy), we need the
knowledge that will come from further
basic scientific research. Yet we are spend-
ing $70 billion per year on pollution
because of wildly exaggerated fears and
only $9 billion per year on all of our basic
scientific research.
Bruce N. Ames is chairman o/ the dcpart-
menl of biochemistry and director of the
National Institute ol Environmental Health
Sciences Center at UC Derkeley.
UT9VSSzaz
