Proponents, Critics Buzzing Over New Pesticide Law

The implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 has the potential of a dramatic impact, not only to the farming industry, but to the general public as well [“Growing Debate,” July 12].

As the article mentioned, organophosphates, or OPs, are used in many different ways. Chlorpyrifos, incorrectly referred to as a fumigant your article, is widely used by the structural pest control industry to control cockroaches and other health-related insects. OPs play an integral part in allowing farmers to produce affordable, quality fruit and vegetables.

With mounting evidence that fresh fruits and vegetables are a very essential part of our diet, any decrease in the supply or increase in cost to consumers should be of great concern. The most vulnerable members of our society, especially at-risk children, which this legislation strives to protect, could be the most adversely affected by an increase in price.

A short reference was also made regarding recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. The cause of these illnesses was not mentioned, but an inference could be made that there is some connection to the use of OPs. This is not the case. Proper sanitation in all food growing and handling activities, including processing and storage, is necessary to control these illnesses. Imported fruit not only poses higher risks associated with these problems but may also contain unacceptable pesticide residues.

LEON SPAUGY

Agricultural Commissioner

Director of Weights and Measures

County of Los Angeles

*

How is it that we have come to the point where it is considered normal to see a heavily protected worker applying lethal toxics like the organophosphate family of pesticides to our produce? And why, as one produce manager for a Salinas grower contends, is it considered more acceptable to have pesticide-tainted food than produce with a few worms or bugs on it? Our parents (and their parents, and everyone who lived before the advent of pesticides) were content to simply wash the critters off or else cut away any infested portion of their fruits and vegetables. Now we have picture-perfect produce that is laced with poison. Some progress!

Why not label all OP-treated food with the possible health hazards? I have a feeling that with such labeling, most consumers would be happy to pay a premium to get produce that has not been sprayed with OP pesticides.

LAWRENCE I. MESSERMAN

Santa Barbara

*

Comparing organophosphates to “nerve gases such as sarin” is misleading. Sarin is a fluorophosphonate with no insecticidal uses. Using the nerve gas issue to create unnecessary emotional distress is loaded with ethical questions. CNN and Time magazine recently learned lessons on reckless reporting.

The inference that “the recent rash of food-borne illness outbreaks” has something to do with organophosphate residues on food is irresponsible. Improper hygiene, shipping, storage and preparation foster salmonella outbreaks that are responsible for the vast majority of “food borne illness.”

Our nation’s food supply is the most abundant, affordable and safe in the world. Just as we use pharmaceuticals to combat human disease, we use ag and specialty ag chemicals to protect our crops and urban environments.

LON H. RECORDS

President

Target Specialty Products

Santa Fe Springs

*

Data from more than 120 tests relating to health, safety and the environment must be submitted to and accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency before a pesticide is registered for sale and use in this country.

The process costs companies millions of dollars and may take more than a decade to complete. Only 1 in 20,000 chemicals ever makes it from the chemist’s lab to the farmer’s field.

The debate over the Food Quality Protection Act is not between children’s health and the desire for an abundant food supply. Rather, the debate is over the importance of basing regulatory decisions on sound scientific principles, not political agendas.

ELIN D. MILLER

Global Director,

Government and Public Affairs

Dow AgroSciences

Indianapolis

*

Beyond question, the nation’s new pesticide statute, the Food Quality Protection Act, will present many challenges--but even more opportunities.

It will challenge farmers to move away from a culture of poison, reducing their current use of more than 1.2 billion pounds of these chemicals annually.

It will challenge environmentalists to work with, not against, agriculture in making this necessary but difficult transition--in some ways like an addict giving up drugs.

It will challenge the EPA to carefully but effectively ensure enforcement of the Act’s many reforms--such as the requirement that cumulative exposures to pesticides in our food, drinking water, air and homes be considered when reaching a regulatory decision.

And, perhaps most of all, it will challenge the nation’s land grant universities--in the past, too often the handmaidens of the agrichemical industry--to return the American taxpayers’ multimillion-dollar investment in their research budget by expeditiously developing alternative past control technologies.

AL MEYERHOFF

Los Angeles