Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
corporations benefit from the time lag and the uncertainty of multiple ex-
posures; these things make it very difficult to prove that a specific chemical
is to blame. This is called the “benefits of chronic uncertainty” by some
authors (Moore 2002). So while numerous scientific studies drag on, and
government regulations seek to identify “safe” pesticide levels, the chemical
companies are developing newer, “safer” pesticides to boost their profits.
Meanwhile, the real issue of pesticide elimination is never addressed.
Here is an example of this “uncertainty” approach. Scientists from the
Harvard School of Public Health conducted a study to estimate the dietary
exposures to pesticides and heavy metals for 120,000 U.S. adults. They esti-
mated people's annual diet by measuring frequency of eating certain foods
(through a questionnaire) and potential contaminant residue data for table-
ready foods (from FDA data) (MacIntosh et al. 1996). Although exposures
to pesticides varied considerably by individual, “a substantial fraction of
the population was estimated to have dietary intakes in excess of health-
based standards established by the EPA” (MacIntosh et al. 1996, 202). But
the authors caution that “before use for risk assessment or epidemiologic
purposes, however, the validity of the exposure estimates must be evaluated
by comparison with biological indicators of chronic exposure.” And they
concluded that “monitoring programs that use more sensitive study designs
and population-based assessments for other subpopulations should be a
priority for future research.” These are gentle words to soften the harsh
truth that we are all ingesting too many pesticides.
One aspect of the pesticide issue is undeniable: agrichemicals harm farm-
ers' and farm workers' health. The incidence of cancer among farmers is
greater than the population as a whole. One study shows that Iowa farm-
ers are 25 percent more likely than people with other occupations to get
leukemia or lymphoma (Rein 1992). Another study shows that farmers in
Wisconsin have lower death rates related to tobacco and alcohol, but sig-
nificantly higher rates of death from leukemia, lymphoma, and stomach,
rectum, and eye cancers (Saftlas et al. 1987). “Modern chemical practices
in farming” are linked to these increased rates, as “agricultural exposures
were also positively associated with deaths” (119). Other studies show that
farmers have an increased incidence of leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the lip, skin, stom-
ach, prostate, and brain (Novello 1991). One author notes that the “marked
frequency of these cancers in farmers have not been conclusively identified,”
but “exposures to nitrates, pesticides, viruses, antigenic stimulants, and var-
ious fuels, oils, and solvents are suspected causes of many cancers” (Runyan
1993). Very few studies have investigated the effect of pesticide exposure
[20],
(20)
Lines: 223 to 227
———
0.0pt PgVar
———
Normal Page
PgEnds: T
E
X
[20],
(20)
