SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 2586 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
CONSUMER ALERT
BEFORE THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
SUBCOMMITTEE

BODY:

 
We are pleased to have this opportunity to present the views of Consumer Alert before the subcommittee on matters relating to the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. I am Frances B. Smith, executive director of Consumer Alert.
Consumer Alert is the founder and coordinator of the National Consumer Coalition, an on-going coalition of 27 non-profit groups that together represent over 4 million consumers. Consumer Alert, founded in 1977, is a national non-partisan, non-profit consumer group with individual members in all 50 states.
The organization's mission is to assess public policy proposals for their effects on consumers, promote the importance of sound science and sound economic data to underlie public policy, and provide consumer educational materials on topical consumer concerns. Consumer Alert points to the consumer value of a market economy in increasing consumer choice and competition, which leads to lower prices and advances in technology that can improve health and safety. Our funding comes from dues-paying members, as well as individual, foundation, and corporate donors.
This is a crucial time for regulatory agencies' decision-making on how to interpret the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). This Act was prompted by a growing realization that the Delaney Clause was creating serious health risks by focusing solely on the minuscule risks while ignoring the far larger risks associated with lower availability and higher prices of health-enhancing consumer products. FQPA was intended to correct some of the biases of food safety law relating to risk issues. However, with the FQPA and the criteria it sets for pesticides, these biases could be exacerbated as the focus shifts to a standard that considers only risks.
Risk vs. Risk Framework
We feel that it is critical for this subcommittee and the federal regulatory agencies responsible for implementing the Act to hear the views of consumers. In our testimony, we ask the subcommittee to understand the risk vs. risk framework for evaluating pesticides and food safety issues. This is not the standard cost/benefit analysis, nor is it the traditional risk assessment approach. Instead, risk vs. risk looks at the risk of innovation -- in this case, the use of certain pesticides -- and evaluates it against the risk of stagnation -- that is, the risks that may arise from further restrictions or bans on those pesticides.
In taking action to address a concern, to "protect" consumers from a risk, regulators can fall into the trap of not looking at the very real risks that may arise from their actions; what will be referred to as the unintended consequences. It may be helpful to put this concept in question form: How does the pesticide risk for consumers compare to the risk of eating fewer fruits and vegetables because of misplaced fears or increased costs that result?
The appropriate evaluation of risk is important not only for decisions taken by each individual but also for public policy considerations, since policies intended to protect the public from one risk might lead to higher risk in another area. For example, a comparison can be made to delays in the approval of a drug or medical device. Although there might be risks in approving the drug, there are also risks that withholding the drug would result in people dying. These different risks have to be weighed against each other for public policy decisions.
If a minor risk for the public is portrayed out of context, so that the public misperceives it as a major risk, decision-makers could underestimate other unintended consequences. In such a case, a policy concentrating on only one risk without considering the trade-offs involved might turn out to do more harm than good for the public. We would like to point out some of the possible pitfalls that could arise from assessments of pesticide risk that fail to consider the risk vs. risk framework. We will focus on the unintended consequences that fall most heavily on consumers, children, and the poor.
I would first like to draw the Subcommittee's attention to a true story of those unintended consequences. In 1995, there was a scare about pesticide residues on blueberries in Connecticut that was widely reported in the media. A prominent toxicologist received many calls from concerned consumers and told them there was only a minuscule risk of any problems. One woman caller, however, followed up with a question: "You don't understand, professor, I'm pregnant - should I get an abortion?" An excessive focus on small risks without consideration of how this information is perceived by the public can have tragic unintended consequences.
Unintended Consequences
With severe restrictions or bans on pesticides, the retail prices of many fruits and vegetables can rise significantly. Families, especially the poor, may not be able to purchase an adequate amount of produce for their families' healthy diet. Inner-city minorities currently have the lowest dietary intake of fruits and vegetables. Higher prices for produce could hurt them the most. The restriction or ban of certain pesticides for non-food use should also be evaluated from a broad public health perspective. In their June 1992 report, "Pesticides: Minor Uses/Major Issues", the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) highlighted this injustice to the poor."The average U.S. family spends only about 10% of their disposable income on food. For these families, a substantial increase in the costs of fruits and vegetables would not be popular, but could be absorbed without great hardship. However, some 30 million of the U.S. population spend at least 60% of their disposable income on food. For those of limited means, a substantial increase in the price of fruits and vegetables would impose a further serious economic burden. As fruits and vegetables become less affordable, this segment of the population would consume less at a time when health experts recommend an increased consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables." (Chapter 4, Pesticide Loss Implications, p. 11, emphasis added).
About 80 percent of U.S. children and teenagers already FAIL to meet the daily requirements of produce recommended by the National Cancer Institute and the National Research Council. Numerous scientific studies have shown an association of a diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables and a lowered risk of cancer and other diseases. A recent study by the distinguished biologists at the University of California at Berkeley, Drs. Bruce Ames and Lois Gold, noted that a high consumption of produce is "associated with a lowered risk of degenerative diseases including cancer, cardiovascular disease, cataracts and brain dysfunction."
In a 1997 consensus report, an Ad Hoc Panel from the American Cancer Society, in conjunction with the Canadian National Cancer Institute, concluded that the benefits of a diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables far outweighs the minimal risks associated with pesticide residues. The report also echoed earlier findings that increased consumption of fruits and vegetables lowers the risk of developing cancer. In its assessment the panel concluded, "...it is not aware of any definitive evidence to suggest that synthetic pesticides contribute significantly to overall cancer mortality.

" (Cancer, 1997; 80:2019)
The Ad Hoc Panel of experts reviewed several studies by government agencies and international scientists on the relationship between public exposure to pesticides and cancer. The panel focused especially on the general public's exposure to pesticides through residues in food and the use of pesticides in homes and gardens. It also looked at the existing regulations relating to pesticide use and discussed the beneficial effects of their use in agricultural production. One of the main goals of the review was to find out whether the risk from synthetic pesticides was significant enough to justify a reallocation of resources and a shift in cancer prevention programs away from tobacco.
The report further stated that the panel "...did not believe that any increased intake of pesticide residues associated with increased intake of fruits and vegetables poses any risk of cancer." The panel's review of surveys and monitoring programs revealed the majority of food is free of chemical pesticide residues, according to different Canadian and U.S. studies. Only a very small number (between 0.67% and 1.5%) of tested food in these studies contained residue levels above the allowed standards.
The report also mentioned that the level of residues at the time of consumption might even be much lower because of the washing, cooking and processing of food after the harvest. The residue levels could be reduced by as much as 14-100%, according to a survey in the U.S. Thus, the panel said that it saw no need to tighten current regulations of pesticide use. It did suggest that further research should be done, since many factors in cancer development are still not well understood, for example, the effects on infants and children and agricultural workers.
In its assessment of the use of man-made pesticides in agriculture, the panel emphasized the positive role that pesticides play in the prevention of crop destruction, which enables farmers to provide the general public with more affordable produce than they could without these protective measures. Since the increased intake of fruits and vegetables is associated with a lower risk of cancer and other positive health effects, to guarantee an extensive and inexpensive supply of a wide variety of produce provides a significant contribution to public health. With its conclusions, the panel reinforces results from earlier studies, such as the National Research Council/National Academy of Science's 1996 report on "Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet," which also found no significant evidence of increased risk of cancer due to synthetic pesticide residues in food. It also supported the earlier findings on the health benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption, and the significance of a person's diet on his or her risk of developing cancer.
Misperceptions of Risk
Finally, the public's perception of risk took an important place in the 1997 study. The panel pointed out that risk is usually perceived in a different way depending on whether a person has influence over the decision to take it or not. A small involuntary risk might stir up much more anxiety among people than much higher risks people face voluntary, such as driving a car.
This phenomenon can lead to unintended consequences if public health policies are decided based on risk perception rather than on scientific risk assessment, the report noted. The panel recommended more efforts to present hazards and benefits in a balanced way to the general public. "It is most important that we find the ways to put hazards into perspective for the public, to provide a credible source of factual information to encourage a thoughtful and balanced assessment of both risks and benefits..." It warned about the public's tendency to be more concerned about potential hazards imposed by someone else than by hazards that are in the control of the individual, because that approach "... may raise concerns that are not appropriate to the level of risk and also may have the undesirable effect of diverting public attention from areas that present significant public health risks and that are modifiable by individual choice."
(Cancer, 1997; 80:2030). (A copy of the Cancer article is included as an attachment.)
Risks of Pesticide Restrictions for the Food Supply and Public Health
The use of pesticides to produce a healthy, abundant, and affordable food supply must be an important component of reassessment before considering the elimination or additional,significant restrictions on certain pesticides. It has been estimated that a 50 percent reduction in pesticide use would mean a 100 percent loss of peaches produced in Georgia and South Carolina, and a 100 percent loss of apples produced in Michigan. Less drastic reductions would dramatically reduce the yield and thus increase the cost of many fruits and vegetables.
Prominent toxicologists have recently weighed in on some of the problems with highly publicized reports relating to pesticides, specifically, they took issue with the February 1999 Consumers Union report on pesticides, saying that "information obtained from flawed methodology misinforms the public on the risks of pesticide exposure." In a letter on March 8, 1999 to Carol Browner, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, top elected officials of the Society of Toxicology said that "the CU report's conclusions concerning the dangers of pesticides in food are not credible and are unnecessarily alarmist." The Society is the largest professional organization of toxicologists in the world.
The scientists called on Browner "to reassure the American public that there is not cause for alarm, and that fruits and vegetables are important components of a healthy diet." The writers also expressed the organization's belief that sound science has to be an "integral part of risk assessments and the regulatory actions based upon them," and offered the services of many of their members who are experts in pesticides and food safety to serve as resources for the EPA on such issues. Those signing the letter on behalf of the Society were SOTs president, Dr. Steven D. Cohen, vice president, Dr. Jay Goodman, vicepresident elect, Dr. Daniel Acosta, Jr., and past president, Dr. R. Michael McClain. (A copy of the letter is included as an attachment.)
Perverse Incentives
Equally important, as EPA is currently implementing it, FQPA provides perverse incentives to manufacturers who will be forced to make choices on which chemicals and which uses of specific products they will continue to support. They may be forced to cut many minor uses including vegetable crops, ornamentals, and many public health uses. Such actions will cause many fruits and vegetables to become more expensive, place US farmers at an economic disadvantage, and put the public at risk from preventable diseases.
Public Health uses of pesticides, such as those used to control mosquitoes, ticks and other disease-carrying insects, are among some of the lower volume uses of pesticides. Most public health applications do not generate enough use volume to justify the decision to retain these products if the risk cup is exceeded. These critical public health uses of many pesticides may be at risk, and manufacturers may face the unenviable task of removing from the market uses of a product that benefit the public health. Policy makers should carefully assess the public health effects - the risks -- of applying the new criteria to disease-controlling pesticides.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we strongly encourage the committee to focus attention on the unintended consequences of their actions in regard to pesticides: the potential harm to people, especially children and the poor, that could result from a focus on risk in a vacuum. Risks must be evaluated with full recognition of benefits and unintended consequences. The potential danger of pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables and in public health uses is infinitely small compared to the many benefits they provide in achieving a large supply of affordable produce and the health benefits that follow from that.
END


LOAD-DATE: April 24, 1999