Chemicals on our food: When “safe” may not really be
safe
Weed killers in wheat
crackers and cereals, insecticides in apple juice and a mix of multiple
pesticides in spinach, string beans and other veggies – all are part of the
daily diets of many Americans.
For decades, federal officials have declared tiny traces of these contaminants to be safe. But a new wave of scientific scrutiny is challenging those assertions.
For decades, federal officials have declared tiny traces of these contaminants to be safe. But a new wave of scientific scrutiny is challenging those assertions.
Though many consumers
might not be aware of it, every year, government scientists document how
hundreds of chemicals used by farmers on their fields and crops leave residues
in widely consumed foods.
More than 75 percent of fruits and more than 50 percent of vegetables sampled carried pesticides residues in the latest sampling reported by the Food and Drug Administration.
Even residues of the tightly restricted bug-killing chemical DDT are found in food, along with a range of other pesticides known by scientists to be linked to a range of illnesses and disease.
The pesticide endosulfan, banned worldwide because of evidence that it can cause neurological and reproductive problems, was also found in food samples, the FDA report said.
More than 75 percent of fruits and more than 50 percent of vegetables sampled carried pesticides residues in the latest sampling reported by the Food and Drug Administration.
Even residues of the tightly restricted bug-killing chemical DDT are found in food, along with a range of other pesticides known by scientists to be linked to a range of illnesses and disease.
The pesticide endosulfan, banned worldwide because of evidence that it can cause neurological and reproductive problems, was also found in food samples, the FDA report said.
U.S. regulators and the
companies that sell the chemicals to farmers insist that the pesticide residues
pose no threat to human health. Most residue levels found in food fall within
legal "tolerance" levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), regulators say.
"Americans depend on the FDA to ensure the safety of their families and the foods they eat," FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said in a press release accompanying the agency's Oct. 1 release of its residue report.
"Like other recent reports, the results show that overall levels of pesticide chemical residues are below the Environmental Protection Agency's tolerances, and therefore don't pose a risk to consumers."
The EPA is so confident
that traces of pesticides in food are safe that the agency has granted multiple
chemical company requests for increases in the allowed tolerances, effectively
providing a legal basis for higher levels of pesticide residues to be allowed
in American food.
But recent scientific
studies have prompted many scientists to warn that years of promises of safety
may be wrong. While no one is expected to drop dead from eating a bowl of
cereal containing pesticide residues, repeated low level exposures to trace
amounts of pesticides in the diet could be contributing to a range of health
problems, particularly for children, scientists say.
“There are probably many
other health effects; we just haven’t studied them”
A team of Harvard
scientists published a commentary in
October stating that more research about potential links between disease and
consumption of pesticide residues is "urgently needed" as more than
90 percent of the U.S. population has pesticide residues in their urine and
blood.
The primary route of exposure to these pesticides is through the food people eat, the Harvard research team said.
The primary route of exposure to these pesticides is through the food people eat, the Harvard research team said.
Several additional
Harvard-affiliated scientists published a study earlier this year of women who were
trying to get pregnant.
The findings suggested that dietary pesticide exposure within a "typical" range was associated both with problems women had getting pregnant and delivering live babies, the scientists said.
The findings suggested that dietary pesticide exposure within a "typical" range was associated both with problems women had getting pregnant and delivering live babies, the scientists said.
"Clearly the
current tolerance levels protect us from acute toxicity. The problem is that it
is not clear to what extent long-term low-level exposure to pesticide residues
through food may or may not be health hazards," said Dr. Jorge Chavarro,
associate professor of the Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology at the
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and one of the study authors.
"Exposure to
pesticide residues through diet is associated [with] some reproductive outcomes
including semen quality and greater risk of pregnancy loss among women
undergoing infertility treatments. There are probably many other health
effects; we just haven't studied them sufficiently to make an adequate risk
assessment," Chavarro said.
Toxicologist Linda
Birnbaum, who directs the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS), has also raised concerns about pesticide dangers through exposures
once assumed to be safe.
Last year she called for "an overall reduction in the use of agricultural pesticides" due to multiple concerns for human health, stating that "existing US regulations have not kept pace with scientific advances showing that widely used chemicals cause serious health problems at levels previously assumed to be safe."
Last year she called for "an overall reduction in the use of agricultural pesticides" due to multiple concerns for human health, stating that "existing US regulations have not kept pace with scientific advances showing that widely used chemicals cause serious health problems at levels previously assumed to be safe."
In an interview Birnbaum
said that pesticide residues in food and water are among the types of exposures
that need greater regulatory scrutiny.
"Do I think that
levels that are currently set are safe? Probably not," said Birnbaum.
"We have people of different susceptibility, whether because of their own
genetics, or their age, whatever may make them more susceptible to these
things," she said.
"While we look at
chemicals one at a time, there is a lot of evidence for things acting in a
synergistic fashion. A lot of our standard testing protocols, many that were
developed 40 to 50 years ago, are not asking the questions we should be
asking," she added.
Legal doesn’t mean
safe
Other recent scientific
papers also point to troubling findings. One by a group of international
scientists published in May found glyphosate herbicide at doses
currently considered "safe" are capable of causing health problems
before the onset of puberty. More research is needed to understand potential
risks to children, the study authors said.
And in a paper published Oct. 22 in
JAMA Internal Medicine, French researchers said that when looking at pesticide
residue links to cancer in a study of the diets of more than 68,000 people,
they found indications that consumption of organic foods, which are less likely
to carry synthetic pesticide residues than foods made with conventionally grown
crops, was associated with a reduced risk of cancer.
A 2009 paper published
by a Harvard researcher and two FDA scientists found 19 out of 100 food samples
that children commonly consumed contained at least one insecticide known to be
a neurotoxin. The foods the researchers looked at were fresh vegetables, fruits
and juices. Since then, evidence has grown about the harmful human health impacts
of insecticides, in particular.
"A number of
current legal standards for pesticides in food and water do not fully protect
public health, and do not reflect the latest science," said Olga Naidenko,
senior science advisor to the non-profit Environmental Working Group, which has
issued several reports looking at potential dangers of pesticides in food and
water. "Legal does not necessarily reflect "safe," she said.
Unacceptable
levels
One example of how
regulatory assurances of safety have been found lacking when it comes to
pesticide residues is the case of an insecticide known as chlorpyrifos.
Marketed by Dow Chemical, which became the DowDuPont company in 2017, chlorpyrifos is applied to more than 30 percent of apples, asparagus, walnuts, onions, grapes, broccoli, cherries and cauliflower grown in the U.S. and is commonly found on foods consumed by children. The EPA has said for years that exposures below the legal tolerances it set were nothing to worry about.
Marketed by Dow Chemical, which became the DowDuPont company in 2017, chlorpyrifos is applied to more than 30 percent of apples, asparagus, walnuts, onions, grapes, broccoli, cherries and cauliflower grown in the U.S. and is commonly found on foods consumed by children. The EPA has said for years that exposures below the legal tolerances it set were nothing to worry about.
Yet scientific research in
recent years has demonstrated an association between chlorpyrifos exposure and
cognitive deficits in children. The evidence of harm to young developing brains
is so strong that the EPA in 2015 said that
it "cannot find that any current tolerances are safe."
The EPA said that because
of unacceptable levels of the insecticide in food and drinking water it planned
to ban the pesticide from agricultural use. But pressure from Dow and chemical industry lobbyists have
kept the chemical in wide use on American farms. The FDA's recent report found
it the 11th most prevalent pesticides in U.S. foods out of
hundreds included in the testing.
A federal court in August said that the
Trump Administration was endangering public health by keeping chlorpyrifos in
use for agricultural food production.
The court cited"scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children" and ordered the EPA to revoke all tolerances and ban the chemical from the market. The EPA has yet to act on that order, and is seeking a rehearing before the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The court cited"scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children" and ordered the EPA to revoke all tolerances and ban the chemical from the market. The EPA has yet to act on that order, and is seeking a rehearing before the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
When asked how to
explain its changing positions on chlorpyrifos, an agency spokesman said that
the EPA "plans to continue to review the science addressing
neurodevelopmental effects" of the chemical.
The fact that it is
still in wide use frustrates and angers physicians who specialize in child
health and leaves them wondering what other pesticide exposures in food might
be doing to people.
"The bottom line is
that the biggest public health concerns for chlorpyrifos are from its presence
in foods," said Dr. Bradley Peterson director of the Institute for the
Developing Mind at the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles. "Even small
exposures can potentially have harmful effects."
The EPA decision to
continue to allow chlorpyrifos into American diets is "emblematic of a
broader dismissal of scientific evidence" that challenges human health as
well as scientific integrity, according to Dr. Leonardo Trasande, who
directs the Division of Environmental Pediatrics within the Department of
Pediatrics at New York University's Langone Health.
Epidemiologist Philip
Landrigan, director of Boston College's Global Public Health initiative, and a
former scientist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, is advocating for a
ban on all organophosphates, a class of insecticides that includes chlorpyrifos,
because of the danger they pose to children.
"Children are
exquisitely vulnerable to these chemicals," said Landrigan. "This is
about protecting kids."
Increased tolerances at
industry request
The Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act authorizes the EPA to regulate the use of pesticides on foods
according to specific statutory standards and grants the EPA a limited
authority to establish tolerances for pesticides meeting statutory
qualifications.
Tolerances vary from
food to food and pesticide to pesticide, so an apple might legally carry more
of a certain type of insecticide residue than a plum, for instance. The
tolerances also vary from country to country, so what the U.S. sets as a legal
tolerance for residues of a pesticide on a particular food can – and often is –
much different than limits set in other countries.
As part of the setting of those tolerances, regulators examine data showing how much residue persists after a pesticide is used as intended on a crop, and they undertake the dietary risk assessments to confirm that the levels of pesticide residues don't pose human health concerns.
As part of the setting of those tolerances, regulators examine data showing how much residue persists after a pesticide is used as intended on a crop, and they undertake the dietary risk assessments to confirm that the levels of pesticide residues don't pose human health concerns.
The agency says that it
accounts for the fact that the diets of infants and children may be quite
different from those of adults and that they consume more food for their size
than adults.
The EPA also says it combines information about routes of pesticide exposure - food, drinking water residential uses - with information about the toxicity of each pesticide to determine the potential risks posed by the pesticide residues. The agency says if the risks are "unacceptable," it will not approve the tolerances.
The EPA also says it combines information about routes of pesticide exposure - food, drinking water residential uses - with information about the toxicity of each pesticide to determine the potential risks posed by the pesticide residues. The agency says if the risks are "unacceptable," it will not approve the tolerances.
The EPA also says that
when it makes tolerance decisions, it "seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances
with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural practices."
Monsanto, which became
of unit of Bayer AG earlier this year, has successfully asked the EPA to expand
the levels of glyphosate residues allowed in several foods, including in wheat
and oats.
In 1993, for example, the EPA had a tolerance for glyphosate in oats at 0.1 parts per million (ppm) but in 1996 Monsanto asked EPA to raise the tolerance to 20 ppm and the EPA did as asked. In 2008, at Monsanto's suggestion, the EPA again looked to raise the tolerance for glyphosate in oats, this time to 30 ppm.
At that time, it also
said it would raise the tolerance for glyphosate in barley from 20 ppm to 30
ppm, raise the tolerance in field corn from 1 to 5 ppm and raise the tolerance
of glyphosate residue in wheat from 5 ppm to 30 ppm, a 500 percent increase.
The 30 ppm for wheat is matched by more than 60 other countries, but is well above the tolerances allowed in more than 50 countries, according to an international tolerance database established with EPA funding and maintained now by a private government affairs consulting group.
The 30 ppm for wheat is matched by more than 60 other countries, but is well above the tolerances allowed in more than 50 countries, according to an international tolerance database established with EPA funding and maintained now by a private government affairs consulting group.
"The Agency has
determined that the increased tolerances are safe, i.e, there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue," the EPA stated in the May 21, 2008 Federal Register.
"All these
statements from EPA - trust us it's safe. But the truth is we have no idea if
it actually is safe," said Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a clinician scientist at
the Child & Family Research Institute, BC Children's Hospital, and a
professor in the faculty of health sciences at Simon Fraser University in
Vancouver, British Columbia.
Lanphear said that while regulators assume toxic effects increase with dose, scientific evidence shows that some chemicals are most toxic at the lowest levels of exposure. Protecting public health will require rethinking basic assumptions about how agencies regulate chemicals, he argued in a paper published last year.
Lanphear said that while regulators assume toxic effects increase with dose, scientific evidence shows that some chemicals are most toxic at the lowest levels of exposure. Protecting public health will require rethinking basic assumptions about how agencies regulate chemicals, he argued in a paper published last year.
In recent years both
Monsanto and Dow have received new tolerance levels for the pesticides dicamba
and 2,4-D on food as well.
Raising tolerances
allows farmers to use pesticides in various ways that may leave more residues,
but that doesn't threaten human health, according to Monsanto. In a blog posted last year, Monsanto
scientist Dan Goldstein asserted the safety of pesticide residues in food
generally and of glyphosate in particular.
Even when they exceed the regulatory legal limits, pesticide residues are so minuscule they pose no danger, according to Goldstein, who posted the blog before he retired from Monsanto this year.
Even when they exceed the regulatory legal limits, pesticide residues are so minuscule they pose no danger, according to Goldstein, who posted the blog before he retired from Monsanto this year.
About half of foods
sampled contained traces of pesticides
Amid the scientific
concerns, the most recent FDA data on
pesticide residues in food found that roughly half of the foods the agency
sampled contained traces of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and other
toxic chemicals used by farmers in growing hundreds of different foods.
More than 90 percent of
apple juices sampled were found to contain pesticides. The FDA also reported
that more than 60 percent of cantaloupe carried residues.
Overall, 79 percent of American fruits and 52 percent of vegetables contained residues of various pesticides – many known by scientists to be linked to a range of illnesses and disease. Pesticides were also found in soy, corn, oat and wheat products, and finished foods like cereals, crackers and macaroni.
Overall, 79 percent of American fruits and 52 percent of vegetables contained residues of various pesticides – many known by scientists to be linked to a range of illnesses and disease. Pesticides were also found in soy, corn, oat and wheat products, and finished foods like cereals, crackers and macaroni.
The FDA analysis
"almost exclusively" is focused on products that are not labeled as
organic, according to FDA spokesman Peter Cassell.
The FDA downplays the
percentage of foods containing pesticide residues and focuses on the percentage
of samples for which there is no violation of the tolerance levels. In its most
recent report, the FDA said that
more than "99% of domestic and 90% of import human foods were compliant
with federal standards."
The report marked the
agency's launch of testing for the weed killer glyphosate in foods. The
Government Accountability Office said in 2014 that both the FDA and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture should start regularly testing foods for glyphosate.
The FDA did only limited tests looking for glyphosate residues, however, sampling corn and soy and milk and eggs for the weed killer, the agency said. No residues of glyphosate were found in milk or eggs, but residues were found in 63.1 percent of the corn samples and 67 percent of the soybean samples, according to FDA data.
The FDA did only limited tests looking for glyphosate residues, however, sampling corn and soy and milk and eggs for the weed killer, the agency said. No residues of glyphosate were found in milk or eggs, but residues were found in 63.1 percent of the corn samples and 67 percent of the soybean samples, according to FDA data.
The agency did not
disclose findings by one of its chemists of glyphosate in oatmealand honey products, even though the FDA chemist
made his findings known to supervisors and other scientists outside the agency.
Cassell said the honey
and oatmeal findings were not part of the agency's assignment.
Overall, the new FDA
report covered sampling done from Oct. 1, 2015, through Sept. 30, 2016, and
included analysis of 7,413 samples of food examined as part of the FDA's
"pesticide monitoring program."
Most of the samples were of food to be eaten by people, but 467 samples were of animal food. The agency said that pesticide residues were found in 47.1 percent of the samples of food for people produced domestically and 49.3 percent of food imported from other countries destined for consumer meals.
Animal food products were similar, with pesticide residues found in 57 percent of the domestic samples and 45.3 percent of imported foods for animals.
Most of the samples were of food to be eaten by people, but 467 samples were of animal food. The agency said that pesticide residues were found in 47.1 percent of the samples of food for people produced domestically and 49.3 percent of food imported from other countries destined for consumer meals.
Animal food products were similar, with pesticide residues found in 57 percent of the domestic samples and 45.3 percent of imported foods for animals.
Many imported food
samples showed residues of pesticides high enough to break the legal limits,
the FDA said. Nearly 20 percent of imported grain and grain product samples
showed illegally high levels of pesticides, for example.
Carey Gillam is a
journalist and author of Whitewash: The Story of a Weed
Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science.. She's also a researcher for US Right
to Know, a nonprofit food industry research group.