Tobacco Documents Online

` aovernment Report Finds Levels Safe . Pesticide Residues in Your Children's Food Jud„h E Foulke • • Concern was stirred up this past June about pesticide residues in the diets of infants and chil• dren. Late in the month, the Food and Drug A<Iministration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Environmental Protection Agency i.99ued a rare joint statement pledging to reduce the use of chemicaly in the production of the nation's fond supply and to promote "alternatiue" agriculture, which substitutes the use of beneficial insects, rotatinn of cropa, and organic chemicals for syn• thetic pesticintes. The announcement came in anticipation of a National Academy of Sciences report', ir+sued a few days later, which concluded, essentially, that the current re,gulatory procedures for setting safe levels for and monitoring the presence of pestecide residues in food needs to be adjusted to account more for the eating habits of infants and children. Little is known about children's sensitivity to pes ticides, according to the Academy, but available data on other toxic chemicals "suggest that chil- dren may be more sensitive than adults to some esticidc residues on infant foods and adult foods that infants and children eat are almo5t always well below tolerances ...{ .................................................................................................... ............... (the highest levels legally allowed) set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This was the conclusion of a recent F ood and I)rug Administration (FDA) report based on the agen- cy's monitoring of these types of foods over the pa3t aeven yeara. The FDA report, "Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Infant Foods and Adult Foods Eaten by Infants and Children," was published in the May/June 1993 iss-uc of the Jnurna.l of the Associa- tinn of 0/)ici.al ~Vtulylioal (;hemists Internrttional, The authora, FDA consumer safety ufficer Norma Yess and chpmista E1liR Gunderson and Ronald Roy of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, based their findings on food samples from the three approaches the FDA uses Judith E. Foulke „A a staff writer for FDA Consumer-a publication of the Food and Drug Adrnintstration- from which thie article is reprinted. Judith Levine Willis also contributed to this article. 20 Consumers' pr:s.arth pesticides, while being less or equall,y sensihve to others. " In addition, the report fnund that chil- dren's eating patterns are irea<leyuatrly represent• ed in food cztnsumption surueys-thu9 pntenttally underestimating the amount of residues children consume. The report's authors cautioned against overre- acting tn the findings: "We could not find any data that demonstrated adverse health effects from pesticide re.sidues, " said Donald Mattison, Dean of the University of Pittsburgh graduate school. Despite such assurances, littlee by way of perspective on pesticide use was provided at the time or in subsequent news stories. Just tuhat is known about pesticide residues in children's food? The following articlc reports the results from an exlensive, up-to-date Food and Drug Adrninstratiun study on thp topic-indic.at- iniq residuca fall within safe levels. Fnr added per• specteve, we present a discussion (see sidebar at page 22) of the trade-offs of synthetic vs, natural pest control m.ethods. -Ed. to monitor pesticides: regulatory, incidencr. and level, and Total Diet Study. '!'hrough the regulatory appmnc)t, the FDA checks foods close to the point of production for lcvels of residueR and, if they are violative, consid- ers enforcement action. Incidence and level is a study approach that analyzes selected samples of certain foods, Total Diet Study is an approach that uses data from supermarket shopping. Of more than 10,000 food samplps reported from regulawry monitoring, fewer than 50 were violative. No residues over EPA or FDA action 1ev- P1s were found in samples from the incidence and level studies. In the Total Diet Study, no residuex were found in infant formulas, and no residues over FDA or EPA allowed levels were found. The re:sponsibility for ensuring that residues of pesticides in fcxnls are nnt present at levels thut will pose a danger to health is ahared by the FDA, IrPA, and the Food Safety and Inspection Servirn of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (LTSDA). Pesticides of concern include inaecticides, fungi- ' PrstKws +n fht oteu at rnqr,fs an0 Ch:kmn, Natwtu/ Ress3rCn Countll, 1993 -r-r

I 14 • • • cides, horbicides, and other agricultural chemicals, The h;PA reviews the sfiientific data on xll f,esti- cide products before they can be registered (or lic(insed) for u.te. If a product is intended for use on food crops, the EPA also est.ablishes a tolerance, The FDA is responsible for enforcing these tol- erances on all foods except meat, poultry, and cer• tain egg products, which are monitored by the USDA. In addition, the FDA works with the EPA to set "action leveln"--enforcemettt guidnlines for retiidues of pesticides, such as DDT, that may remain in the environment after their use is dis- continued. Thu guidelines are set at levels that protect public health. (See "Monitoring PesticideR In Our Food," CR, June 1989.) "Of more than 10,000 food sam- ples...fewer than 50 were viola- tive.... In the Total Diet Study, no residues were found in infant far- mulas, and no residues over FDA or EPA allowed levels were found." Ragulatary lVtonitorinq. In its regulatory monitor- ing to enforce EPA-set tolerances, the FDA checks foods fur pesticide residues as close to pruduction of the commodity as possible-At distributors, at food processors, or, if imported, at entry into the country. If illegal residues are found in domestic samples, the FDA can take regulatory action, such as seizure or irajunction. For imports, the FDA can stop shipments at ports of entry. The FDA report used data from its regulatory monitoring between 1985 and 1991, The authors chose eight fuods that infants and children eat in relatively large quantities--apples, bananas, oranges, and pears; grape and orange juices; and milk. The FDA found 50 violative :uamples, repre- senting only 0.3% of dommtic products and 0.6°k of imports reported under the regulatory moni- toring approach. All foodg sampled in regulatory monitoring are twalyzed unwashed and unpeeled---even banxnas. Yess explains that because food proces5ors, and tnot;t consumers, wash or peel produce before eat- ing or using it in food products, many uf the viola- tive aamples reported in the FDA study showed higher residues than the actual amount patiple arc exposed to. Studles have showtt that residucis of many pesticides can he washed ofT fresh pro- duce, a good practicp fnr anyone fixing a salad nr snacking an grapes (see box at right). Wash Before Eating Washing fret;h produce before eating is a healthful habit. You can reduce and often eliminate residues if they are present on fresh fruits and vegetables by following these simple tips: • Wash produce with large amounts of cold or warm tap water, and scrub with a brush when appropriate; do not use soap. • Throw away the outer leaves of leefy veg- etables, such as lettuce and cabbage. • Trim fat from meat, and fat and skin from poultry and fish. ReNiduPs of some pfnti- cidos concentrate in animal fat. Supermarkets, as a rule, don't wa.9h pro- duce before putting it out, but many stores mist it while it's on display. Misting keeps the produce from drying, but surface residues drain off also, in much the same way as from a light wash under the kitchen faucpt. A 1990 report in the EPA Journal by three chemists from that agency summarized four gtudies of fresh tomatoes treated with a fungicide, which were tested at harvest, at the packing house, and at point of sale to the consumer. The studies showed that mura than 99'?v of the residues were washt.Yl off at the packing house by the food proc,_x3our, A 1989 study reported by Edgar Elkinn in the.Iournal of the Assnciatton of Offiritt! Ann- lytical Chemists showed the effects of peeling, blanching and processing on a number of fruits and vegetables. For example, in the case of benomyl, 83% of the residues found on fresh apples were removed during processing into applesauce, 98% of residues from orangus processed to juice were removed, and 86% of residues from fruah tomatoes pro- cessed to juice were removed. Another study in 199J by Gary Eilrich, reported in an Am.er- ican Chemical Society Syrnposium, showed similar reaults. ILE.F. Of the 50 violative snmples, nearly ttll were pesticide residues for which there were no toler- ances or EPA "approval for use" on the specific fond ;atupied. Sinct, pesticides arc registered for specific crop5, residuet; on crops for which the pa5ticirle has not hewn registered Are illegal. A few samples had residues higher than EPA tolerunccs or FDA action lovels in effect ttt the time; a number of tolerances were revised between 1985 arid 1991, The revisions fur August 1993 21 r. ~ RPnrrulr.r..rf vlt1. ..~..~.,ta..~.... .s........~.-i. ---'

9 i • daminozide {Alar), for example, reflect that it has not been used in agriculture since 1989. Some domestic milk samples showed small amounts of chlorinated pesticide residues. The registration for food use fnr these compounds expired more thun 20 years ago, but because they persist in the environment, residues are still frund at low levelg. Incidence and Level Studies. When thc FUA wants to know more about specific pestieides, commodities, or pesticide-commodity combina- tions, the agency supplements its rngulatory rnnn- ituring by arie.lyzing selected samples of certain fotx3n in incidence and level monitoring. For thc pesticide residue report, the authors used the results of two studies, One study ttu'get• ed five specific commodity-pesticide combinations for infant foods and other foods commonly enten by inft+nts and children. The analyses for this study were directed hy the FDA anrl completed in 1990 through a cooperative agrecment with a USbA laboratory in Gulfport, Miss, '1'he other study, also in 1990, anulyzed whole pastpurizrd milk samples through an F'DA-supportc,d cuntract. laborAtory. Both studies included results (if analyses nf several pesticides and pestieide-cummodity cumhi• nations that have been the focus of public atten- Another Perspectivea a. Nature's Way The faltowi.ng artiele, by scienliats Bruce N. Amee wzd Lois Smirsky Gold, is excerpted fmm their chapt@r in Phantom Risk: Scientific Infer- ence and the Law, (edited by Foster, Bernstein, Hrtber)jurt published by MIT PreQa. -Ed. All plants produce toxins to protect themselveu against fungi, inaecta, and predators, such as humans. Tens of thousands of these natural pesticides have been discovered, and every species of plant aontains its own set of different taxins, usually a few doten. When plants are streaaed or da.m.aged (when attacked by pests), they greatly increase their output of natural peatiddes, occaaionally to levels that are acutr ly taric to humans. We estimate that a typical American eats about 1,500 mg per day of natural pesticides, which is 10,000 times more than the average daily consumptiqn of synthetic pesticide rosiduee. We also estimate that a person ingesta annually about 5,000 to 10,000 d;.fFerent natu- ral pesticides and their breakdown products. Plgnt.s need chemical defenses-natural or eynthetio--to survive attack by peet8. There is a trade-off between nature's pesticides and syn- thetic pesticides in providing such protection. Cultivated plants commonly contain fewer natural toxins than their wild counterparts, as a result of domestication. For example, the wild potato, the progenitor of cultivated $trains of potato, bas a glycoalkaloid content about three times higher than that of cultivated strairis and is more toxic. The leaves of the wild cabbage (the progenitor of cabbage, broc- cnli, and cauliflower) contain about twice as many glucosinolates as cultivated cabbage. The wild beau contains about three times as many 22 Consumers' Resefiroh n...._..A....-.4 --ja _-.._-.. . cyanogenie [capable of producing cyatudt:) blu- cosides as does the cultivated bean. Similar dif- ferencea between cultivated and wild varieties have been reported in lettuce, lima bean, mango, and cassavtt. BecauAe of disproportionate concern about synthetic pesticide residues, some plant breed- era are developing more insezt-resistant plants that have more natural toxinR. Two recent cases illustrate the potential hazards of this approach to pest control; • As the first example, a major grower intro• duced a new variety of highly insect-rr.aistant celery. Thin led to a tlurry of complaints to the Centers for Disease Control that people who handled the calery developed rashes after sub- sequent exposure to sunlight. After yome detective work, scientists found that the pest- resiRtant celery contained 6,200 parts per bil- lion (ppb) of carcinogenic (and muiagenic) psoralens, compared with 800 ppb iu nurmal celery. It is not known whether other natural pesticides were increased in the ineect-resie- tant celery as well. The celery is still on the market. • A second example, a new potato, developed at a cost of millions of dollars, had to be with- drawn from the market because it was acutely toxic to humans when grown under particular soil conditions. This was a consequence ol" higher levels of the natural toxins sulHnine and ehaconine, which block nerve transmiaNion and are known rodent teratngens [able to rause birth defects). These tozins were widely intro- duced into the world diet about 400 years ago, when potatoes were disseminated from the Anndes. A typical 200 gram potato cuntains 15 mg of toxins (75,000 ppb), which is less than a r -T

I 3 • • • tion within the pust (ive years, No residues over E1'A toler,inces or FDA action levels were fnund in samples from either of the two studies. The firat stud,v involved five tasks. In the first, ahout 900 samples of commercially prepared infant foods and formulas were collectM and anfl- lyzed for re.siducs of the fullowing pesticidr.s: • benomyl-thiabendazole (fungicides) • dHmini>zirir (3prayed on apple trees to pre- vent, premature drop, no longer used by growers) • ethylenethiourca (ETU, a breakdown prod- uct ofthe fungicide) • aldicarb (an insecticide, acartcide against snails, and nematocide against worms) factnr of ten belnw levels measurably toxic to humans. Neither solanine nor checonine has been tested for carcinogenicity. In contrast, malathion, the main synthetic organophos- phate pesticide residue in our diet (0.006 mg per day), has been tested and is not a carcino• gen in rats or mice. Certain crops have brscome popular in devel- oping countries because they thrive without requiring costly synthetic peaticides, However, some of these naturally pest-resistant crops arc highly toxic and require extensivp procpesing to detoxify them. For example, cassava root, a major food crop in Afrtca and South America, is quite resistant to pests and disease. However, it contains so much cyanide that extensive washing, grinding, fermenting, and heating are needed to make it edible. Ataxia (the inability to control body movements) from chronic cyanide poisoning is common in many cassava-eating areas in Africa. A second example is the pest resistant Lv1h- yrus satiuus, which is cultivated in parts of India for making wme types of dahl. Its seeds contain a nerve poison that causes a crippling nervous system disorder, neurolathyrism. 'I'o avold synthetic pesticides, "organic" farmers can legally use natural pesticides from one plant species to protect plants of a differ- ent species. 'I'hese include rotenone (which Indians used to poiaon fish) or pyrothrins from chrysanthemum plants. These naturally derived pesticides have not been as extensively tCSted for carcinngPnicity (rotenone is nega- tive, however), mutagenicity, or tcratogenicity as synthetic pesticides. Their safety compared with synthetic~ pesticides should not be assumed prematurely, Nonscientists often think of chetnicals as Ro-nrn.liqn..d s1*9- ..~_...:... ~..~ _e -- • only synthetic, and characterize sytithetic chemicals as toxic, as if every natural chemical were not also toxic at some dose. Even ii 1487 National Research Council report states: "Advances in clt+ssical plant brecding...offer some promise for nnnchemical pest control in the future...." The report was concerned with pesticide residuoa in tomatoes, but i f,*nored the natural pesticides in tomatoes. Tomatinc, one such pesticide, was introduced comparatively recently into the world diet from Peru 40Q years ago. Neither tomatine nor a related natu- ral product, tomtttidine, has been teAtad in rodent cancer biuassays. A 100 gram tomato contains 36 mg of tomntine (360,000 ppb), which is much closer tn an acutely toxic level in humatit; than residues of synthetic pesticides. Efforts to prevent hypothetical cancer risks of one in a million could be counterproductive if the risks of the alternatives are greatcr, For example, Alar was withdrawn from the mar- ket after the EPA proposed cancellation hear- ings on it and after the Natural Resourc.es Defense Council went to the media to get the process acceleratod. However, the potential problems from withdrawing Alar should he addressed. These include the possible increaae in pesticide use, increase of molds in apple juice, increases in price, and decroxAes in con- sumption of apples that might cause con- sumers to substitute less health fouds, Giving up smoking, eating more fruits and vegeta- bles, and less fat, appear to he the best ways to lower the risk of cancer and heart disen.ic. -Dr. Am.es t8 director of the Envtronnw.nta! Herslth Sciences Center, University of California, Berkel@y. Dr. (;flkl ts a.atnjf scientist at the Lawrrncr Ilerkelry Wborakny Qtu1 ia dlrer.tnr ojtht Carcino,qenic Poten- Cy Project. Copyright e 1993, Mashnchrssr:l(B 1L1x1i- tule of Technology Au9uaty993 23 . r I

4 , • • • the organochlorine group of pesticides (older, more persistent pesticides, including those no longer used in foods). The other four tasks were analyses of adult foods eaten by infants and children: • apples, bananax, oranges, and pears for heno- rnyl-thiabendazole • apple and grape juices, applesauce, and canned pears for daminozide • grape juice for ETU • bananas, oranges, and orange juice for ttldicarb. 'I'hree-quartera of the samples collected for all tasks were from large retail grocery stores in six atates--Massachusetts, ;llinois, Michigan, WiA- cc,1tyin, Minnesota, and Washington. The remain- ing samplew were collected in the Gulfport, Miss., area (the home of the USDA's National Monitor• ing and Residue Analyais Laboratory, whore the FDA-directed study was performed). The pre- pared infant foods and formula samples were selected mostly from the ma,jor manufacturers. The second atudy showed the results of t;am- pling for residues of the organochlorine group of pesticides in whole pasteurized milk. Organochlo- rine pesticide residues-rnoatly DDT, DDE, and dieldrin-werc found in 398 of the 806 milk sam- ples, but all were well below F.PA tolerances or FDA action levels, Samples for the milk study came from monthly collections at 63 sampling stations that are part of the EPA's Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring .System, located in large metropolitan e.rerLg throughout the United States. At each sam- pling station, milk fmm selected sources was com- bined to represent the milk routinely consumed in that area. Portions of milk were sent to an FDA contrxut. laboratory for analysis. To181 Olet Study, For its report, the FDA also used data from the 'I'otxl Diet Study, which is used to monitor a number of nutritional concerns, includ• ing pesticides. As part of the Total Diet Study, FDA staffers shop in supermarkets or grocery stores four times a year, once in each of four geo- graphical rc.-gions of the country. Shopping in three cities from each region, they buy the same 234 foodG (including meat), selected from nationwide dietary survey data to typify the American diet. The purchased foods are called "market baskets," Foods from the market baskets are then pre- pared as a consumer would prepare them. For exarnple, beef anr3 vegetable stew is made from the cOllected inf;redients, using a atandard recipe. The prepared Foods are analyzed for pesticides residuas, and the rebults, together with USDA consumption studies, are used to estimate the dietary intake of pesticides residues for eight age- 24 Consumers' Aesenrch r sex groups ranginK from infants to senior citizens. For their report, the FDA researchers included results from 27 market baskets collected and ana- lyzed between 1985 and 1991. Included were 33 different infant foods (both strained and junior), 10 adult foods eaten by infants and children, and four types of milk. The infant foods included cera- als, combination meat and poultry dinners, veg- etables, desserts, fruits and fruit juicea, nnd infant formulas. The adult foods inrluded apples, oranges, pears, bananas; apple, grape, and orange juices; applesauce; grape jelly; and peanut butt.er, Milks were chocolate, evaporated, low-fat (2%), and whole. No residues were found in the infant formulas, and no residues over EPA tolerances or FDA action levels were found in any of the '1'ota] Diet Study foods, Low levels of malathic,n were found in some cereals because malathion is widely used both before and after harvest on grains jseee dis- cussion in sidebarl. Low levels of thiabendazole, a post-harvest fungicide used on many fruits, were found on some of the fruits and fruit products. The low levels of pesticide residues found in the Tota1 Diet Study and incidence-level monitoring samples show how processing foods or otherwise preparing them for conmimption at the table can reduce residue levels. Washing at home removes much of the residues. But commercial food process- ing steps, such as peeling and blanching, can fur- ther reduce residues. For example, the highest finding of thiabendazole in raw applea was 2 parts per million, or ppm, (EPA tolerance is 10 ppm), 0,08 in apple juicP, and 0.06 in applesaum. Also, agricultural specialists from major infant• food manufacturers work with their contract growers to minimize peaticide apnli(tm.inna and to ensure that only those pesticides specified in the contract are applied. Therefore, when pesticides residues are found on infant fooda, they are usu- ally well helow EPA tolerances. ® r- r Reproduced with perraissioit of copyri¢ht ocvner. F.Irth.. ra....,.1+..-+~.... .._. a.,a ,._ .