TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 032789 / 03278900.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 6.6 KB | 138 lines

<text id=89TT0802> <title> Mar. 27, 1989: Down On The Farm </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1989 Mar. 27, 1989 Is Anything Safe? </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> NATION, Page 29 Down on the Farm </hdr><body> By Anastasia Toufexis Contamination of food can begin in the production process. For fruits and vegetables, the major concern is pesticides. At a time when nutritionists are urging the public to down more fresh produce, consumer groups are claiming that pesticide use could result in tens of thousands of cancer cases over the next 50 years. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, use of pesticides -- fungicides, herbicides, insecticides and plant-growth regulators -- has more than doubled in the past 20 years, to about 820 million lbs. annually. Farmers say the chemicals are necessary to save crops and keep food prices low; even with extensive spraying, pests destroy around a third of U.S. crops each year. The Government insists that pesticides pose little hazard to health. The EPA sets limits for the amounts of residue left in foods that are well below what it considers to be danger levels. And regular checks by the Food and Drug Administration of both domestic and imported crops uncover few violations. In 1987, for example, the FDA tested 14,492 food samples, about one-third of them fruits and vegetables, and found that less than 1% of the items had residues that exceeded the legally allowable EPA level. No pesticides at all were detected on 57%. But troubling facts remain. As much as 50% of fruits and vegetables come from abroad where the restrictions on pesticide use are generally not as stringent as in the U.S. Imported produce often carries not only higher levels of chemicals than domestic supplies but also residues of DDT and other pesticides banned in the U.S. The EPA permits American farmers to use some 320 pesticides on food. However, the scientific information on many of them is thin. In 1970 pesticide regulation was removed from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and turned over to the fledgling EPA. Most of the chemicals then in use were grandfathered into approval without extensive tests to document their safety; 66 of the 320 pesticides have since been classified as carcinogens by the Government. Critics complain that the EPA has no way to measure the combined impact of ingesting many different pesticides. "I may have Alar on my apples, lead arsenate on my grapefruit, captan on my vegetables," says Jay Feldman, national coordinator of the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides. "Alone, each of them may constitute a negligible risk. But when you add them up, the total toxic burden is too high." Obviously, the Government will have to strengthen its regulatory standards and put more resources into testing if it hopes to bolster confidence in the wholesomeness of fruits and vegetables. The EPA will also have to review whether most pesticides serve an indispensable purpose. Between 60% and 80% of pesticides are used on produce primarily to enhance eye appeal by keeping fruits unblemished longer. Alar, for example, is sprayed on apples mainly to allow them to ripen slowly. Some consumers have begun to reject the perfect look. "I do not want food that has been overly sprayed, waxed or tampered with," declares Norma Quintana of Napa Valley, Calif. "If things look too manicured, I get a little wary." Although many people would like to see the total elimination of pesticide use, that is not a feasible goal. Organic farming, while on the increase, will probably never be able to satisfy the nation's produce needs; it now supplies perhaps 1% of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the U.S., and the prices are high for many budgets. It is more realistic to encourage alternative means of growing crops that rely less heavily on pesticide use. Integrated pest management, for example, releases insect predators into fields to help destroy pests and replaces regular chemical use with more judicious spraying. One benefit of reduced pesticide use would be less chemical contamination of fish. The waters where fish breed are being polluted by pesticide runoff from the land along with sewage and industrial wastes that are dumped into streams and rivers. Oyster and clam beds that lie close offshore have been especially vulnerable. Long-established practices in the livestock industry are also worrisome. For decades, cattle ranchers have been promoting weight gain in steers and heifers by giving them drugs. More than half the 35 million U.S. cattle sold at market each year had pellets embedded behind their ears that during key growth stages slowly released hormones, including testosterone or progesterone. The drugs can cut 21 days off the time needed for an animal to reach 1,000 lbs. and at the same time promote development of leaner meat. Ranchers say this translates into savings for them (the $1 implant shaves roughly $20 off the feeding bill) and lower prices and less fatty meat for consumers. Antibiotics like penicillin and tetracycline are mixed into animal feed for similar reasons. The low doses enhance growth and ward off ailments such as influenza and intestinal diseases, which are caused by the overcrowding and confinement common to factory farming. About half of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. today are fed to farm animals. Although no solid scientific evidence indicates that hormones in beef are hazardous, many Americans are concerned. The European Community prohibited such drug use in cattle four years ago, and last January the E.C. banned imports of meat treated with hormones. But adding antibiotics to feed may pose an even greater threat. For years the drugs have been losing their punch against bacterial infections in humans. One explanation: the bacteria that normally flourish in the guts of farm animals are developing immunity to the antibiotics. And these new strains of superbugs are being passed on to people in the meat they eat. Charges Bradley Miller, director of the Humane Farming Association: "The livestock industry is squandering our medical miracles." Though ranchers challenge such claims, the growing public outcry is persuading many of them to stop placing antibiotics in feed. Since drug use is not inherently necessary to the livestock industry, the Government should consider gradually phasing out the practice. </body></article> </text>