Toxins on Your Strawberries

A good reason to eat organic strawberries.

Commercially grown strawberries and tomatoes in California could start getting an unhealthy dose of the highly toxic fumigant methyl iodide, a known carcinogen, neurotoxin, and thyroid disruptor. Among scientists’ greatest concerns is the pesticide’s ability to cause spontaneous abortion late in pregnancy. So you might be surprised to hear that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) recently issued a proposed decision to approve methyl iodide for use just months after a state-commissioned study warned that any agricultural use “would result in exposures to a large number of the public and thus would have a significant adverse impact on the public health” adding that, “adequate control of human exposure would be difficult, if not impossible.”

Strawberries are already near the top of the Environmental Working Group’s Dirty Dozen (13 pesticides were detected on a single sample) and recently, a high-level Presidential Cancer Panel recommended reducing chemical exposure by choosing fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers (i.e., organic).

EPA Registers Methyl Iodide as a Pesticide

According to Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first registered methyl iodide as a pesticide in 2007, despite a letter of protest sent by prominent scientists and Nobel laureates to the agency saying that it’s “astonishing” that the EPA is considering “broadcast releases of one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing into the environment.” EPA initially limited its approval, registering methyl iodide for just one year. Then, during the final months of the Bush Administration, EPA quietly removed the time limits on its decision, effectively giving its manufacturer, Tokyo-based Arysta LifeScience, the largest privately-held pesticide producer on the planet, a green light for entry into the U.S. market. Two years later, the EPA agreed to reopen its decision on methyl iodide, pending results of a California Scientific Review Committee. The report, referenced above, was published on DPR’s Web site in February and shortly thereafter, groups from around the country submitted a petition to EPA to reopen their decision.

“We are talking about a pesticide that’s been linked to cancer and late-term miscarriages and, because it’s a gas, easily drifts from the fields and into nearby communities,” said Greg Loarie, an attorney for Earthjustice, which filed the petition. “Families who live and work near California’s tomato, strawberry and other fields will be harmed if the state moves forward with this proposal. There are safe alternatives to methyl iodide. There is simply no reason to be subjecting Californians to such serious health risks.”

Against Public Interest

Methyl iodide was developed as an alternative to the fumigant methyl bromide, a chemical which also has serious health implications and serious environmental impacts, and which is being phased out under the Montreal Protocol. According to PANNA, methyl iodide is by some measures four times as toxic as methyl bromide. Despite this, the DPR has decided that further restrictions would make the pesticide safe enough for use. These include requiring site-specific licenses, limiting exposure for workers and people living nearby to one-half and one-fifth, respectively, of the EPA’s regulatory target levels, increasing buffer zones, and limiting the rate and extent to which the fumigant can be used. “The extra, health-protective use restrictions we are proposing … are much stricter than those imposed anywhere else in the United States,” said DPR director Mary-Ann Warmerdam. Still, the facts remain that methyl iodide is chemically reactive and highly volatile, making its application, even in the best of circumstances, clearly not in the public interest. While the California Strawberry Growers Commission has yet to make its position known on the matter, Salinas Valley conventional strawberry growers apparently welcome the approval–strawberries were a $600 million, 10,449-acre crop there in 2008.

Who Pays the Price?

And just in case you thought this might be about whether you can still buy cheap strawberries at Costco, PANNA has put together a superb document, Profiles of Poison, detailing the personal stories of individuals impacted by pesticides who are saying no to methyl iodide. From the farm worker rushed to the hospital with severe chemical blistering and in need of respiratory support, to the pregnant mother who lost her baby only two days after being exposed to pesticide dew, these are the stories of people who have lived through the pain and trauma of pesticide poisoning and are speaking out to prevent others from suffering the same fate.

What To Do?

The DPR is accepting public comments on its proposal through June 14, so unless you’d like some more toxins with your strawberry smoothie, you might want to urge DPR to immediately withdraw the recommendation to approve its agricultural use. CREDO has a one-step simple petition you can sign to make your opposition heard as well.

It is not just the U.S. that uses pesticides on its fruits and vegetables. Contamination of foods with pesticides has been a growing concern in Europe as well. We all must work toward reducing the amount of pesticides in our food.

What's In the Beef?

There is new evidence of contamination in American beef. Not only is E. coli and salmonella found in meat products. But slipping through a system of minimal regulation are practices which allow meat to be contaminated by heavy metals, veterinary drugs and agricultural pesticides.

Slipping Through the Bureaucratic Cracks.

In 2008, Mexican authorities rejected a shipment of U.S. beef because the meat exceeded Mexico's regulatory tolerance for copper. The rejected meat was returned to the United States, where it was sold and consumed, because the U.S. has no regulatory threshold for copper in meat.

Incidents like this are why the food safety arm of USDA, known as the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), is under USDA scrutiny. While the public has gotten used to microbes like E. coli and salmonella threatening the nation's meat supply, and while food safety agencies make food-borne illness a high-profile priority, contamination of meat by heavy metals, veterinary drugs and pesticides has been slipping through the bureaucratic cracks.

Microbial contaminants can be killed by cooking, but chemical residues aren't destroyed by heat. In fact, some of these residues break down into more dangerous substances when heated, according to the FSIS National Residue Program for Cattle, a recent report by the USDA's Office of the Inspector General.

The report is full of bad news about the ineffectual attempts that are being made to keep chemical residues out of the food supply, but optimists might point to the report's tone as a sliver of good news. The report is sharply critical of the efforts to keep our meat free of chemical residues, and shows determination to shore up this gaping hole in food safety.

"... The national residue program is not accomplishing its mission of monitoring the food supply for harmful residues," the report says, noting that thresholds for many dangerous substances, like copper and dioxin, have yet to be established. "We also found that FSIS does not recall meat adulterated with harmful residues, even when it is aware that the meat has failed its laboratory tests."

The Sickness in the System

The routes by which veterinary drugs make it into human food trace a disturbing portrait of how large dairy farms operate. Sick dairy cows are given medications to help them recover, but if it appears an animal will die, it's often sold to a slaughterhouse as quickly as possible, in time to kill it before it dies. That way, "[the dairy farmer] can recoup some of his investment in the animal," according to the report.

In such cases, medications may be consumed along with the meat. Such drugs include Ivermectin (which can act as a neurotoxin in humans), Flunixin (which can damage kidneys), and penicillin (which can cause life-threatening allergic reactions in some people).

The meat from sick dairy cattle is low-grade, and is usually turned into burger and sold to the sorts of buyers who stretch their dollars furthest, like fast food chains and school lunch programs. But veterinary drugs are also finding their way into an upper echelon of meat: veal.

The milk produced by medicated dairy cows is barred from sale to human consumers -- a sensible rule, given the dangers suggested above. Unfortunately, no law prevents this "waste milk" from being fed to veal calves, the meat of which sometimes tests positive for these drugs. As with sick dairy cow meat that tests positive for antibiotics, no measures are taken to recall such veal or penalize the slaughterhouses that produce it. One slaughterhouse, according to the report, amassed 211 violations in 2008 and was still considered by FSIS as a place where contamination "is not reasonably likely to occur."

Such failings can be traced to a 1984 memorandum of understanding between FDA, FSIS and EPA. These three agencies agreed to appoint senior executives to oversee a group called the Surveillance Advisory Team (SAT). The SAT was supposed to manage interagency collaboration aimed at preventing the entry of chemical residues into the food supply. But according to the recent report, "...high-level officials from the agencies involved do not attend [the annual SAT] meetings, and there is no mechanism for elevating issues, making recommendations, and ensuring that appropriate actions are taken to solve identified problems. Without such a mechanism, many problems requiring interagency coordination have not been dealt with despite the agencies' awareness of the problems."

Chinks in the Food Supply's Armor

In addition to veterinary drugs and heavy metals, agricultural pesticides also find their way into the meat supply, often through contaminated food and water. While the SAT agencies jointly determine which pesticides should be tested for, it's the FSIS that actually conducts the tests. In recent years the FSIS has tested for only one of the 23 pesticide classes it is charged with testing for: chlorinated hydrocarbons/chlorinated organophosphates. FSIS blames its limited budget and a lack of guidance as to minimum levels the agency is supposed to enforce. The Office of the Inspector General report dismisses the excuses and calls the oversight unacceptable, saying "the SAT needs to seek executive-level involvement from all three agencies to resolve differences, and, if necessary, to determine the best method for obtaining the needed testing resources to ensure that the highest priority substances are tested."

Several other chinks in the food supply's armor are noted as well, including faulty testing methodologies, bureaucratic smothering of innovative testing techniques, and failure of FSIS to share testing results. After raking the muck, the report makes recommendations on how the interagency collaborations behind the SAT could be improved. The report also mentions that the FSIS has agreed to many of its recommendations, such as increasing testing at plants that slaughter veal calves and dairy cows--where 90 percent of the residue violations have been detected.

While the Office of the Inspector General appears to be making a sincere effort to improve the framework that's supposed to protect our food, it could also be argued that these efforts amount to enabling an industry that remains rotten at its core. Rushing sick cattle to slaughter before they die, or feeding tainted "waste milk" to veal calves, are practices that would be better eliminated than improved, but in fairness that isn't within the mandate of the OIG to decide. So while improvements appear to be in the works for the production practices behind mystery meat and mystery milk, the system shows little sign of becoming inherently less disgusting. As long as customers keep demanding cheap meat, cheap meat will probably continue to be produced.

This is just another example of business placing profits over safety. Tighter regulation should lead to a safer environment and healthier food.

Bee Collapse and Pesticides

In 2006/2007 bee hives were being compromised and bees were vanishing all across the country. Numerous theories from cellphone radiation, poor diet, mites, stress, climate change or low-level pesticide exposure were being considered as the reason for colony collapse.

Some beekeepers have now singled out two pesticides to be the culprit . The chemicals produced by Bayer CropScience, imidacloprid and its chemical cousin clothianidin, are thought to be the cause of bee die-offs around the world for over a decade. [...]

Imidacloprid and clothianidin are chloronicotinoids, a synthetic compound that combines nicotine, a powerful toxin, with chlorine to attack an insect's nervous system. The chemical is applied to the seed of a plant, added to soil, or sprayed on a crop and spreads to every corner of the plant's tissue, killing the pests that feed on it.

Pennsylvania beekeeper John Macdonald has been keeping bees for over 30 years and recently became convinced that imidacloprid is linked to colony collapse disorder. It's the only explanation he can find for why his bees, whose hives border farmland that uses the pesticide, started dropping dead a few years ago.

Bayer CropScience spokesman Jack Boyne says his company's pesticides are not to blame. "We do a lot of research on our products and we feel like we have a very good body of evidence to suggest that pesticides, including insecticides, are not the cause of colony collapse disorder," he says. "Pesticides have been around for a lot of years now and honeybee collapse has only been a factor for the last few years." (Imidacloprid has been approved for use in the U.S. since 1994 and clothianidin has been used since 2003.)

Scientists continue to investigate the causes of colony collapse disorder. Leading theories suggest a combination of factors that include parasitic mites, disease, malnutrition and environmental contaminants like pesticides, insecticides and fungicides. The current EPA review will provide further insight into the role of pesticides, as it will uncover whether honeybees sickened by exposure to imidacloprid spread it around by bringing contaminated nectar and pollen back to the hive. [...]

In a statement, the EPA says that before banning a pesticide, it "must find that an 'imminent hazard' exists. The federal courts have ruled that to make this finding, EPA must conclude, among other things, that there is a substantial likelihood that imminent, serious harm will be experienced from use of the pesticide." The EPA did not clarify what is meant by "imminent hazard" and why the death of honeybees does not qualify.

There seems to be too many theories and not enough testing or regulation.