Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
directly harm humans through exposure but can benefit
human health by keeping the price of healthy foods low—
especially prices of fruits and vegetables. Thus a pesticide
with a low NOAEL may pose less harm than one with a
higher NOAEL if it does a better job of providing affordable
fruits and vegetables. The EPA would be remiss if it did not
consider the benefits of a pesticide on farm productivity when
articulating how it should be used.
Finally, regulation does not stop with the animal trials.
Humans may respond differently to pesticides than animals
do, and there is no guarantee that the safety factors used
offer enough protection. Also, experiments cannot reveal the
cumulative danger of exposure to all the pesticides that are
used. It's like drinking one sip out of many, many bottles of
wine. Each sip has only a negligible effect on your ability to
drive, but when the sips are added together, you do not belong
behind the wheel. Researchers are constantly collecting data
on the health of individuals and their exposure to toxic chemi-
cals like pesticides, to detect any alarming correlations. This
field of research is called epidemiology, and it serves as a
second opinion on the effectiveness of pesticide regulations.
Epidemiological studies are used to revise established regula-
tions and to help the government develop better guidelines on
the regulations of new pesticides in the future.
How Effective Are Pesticide Regulations?
It should be apparent by now that the EPA and its European
counterparts set high safety standards regarding pesticides
based on controlled animal experiments and epidemiological
studies. The question is whether those standards are met. If
pesticides only impact humans as they do animals in experi-
ments, and if pesticide regulations are properly enforced, then
the use of pesticides in agriculture is very safe. Safe use of
pesticides is possible today partly because new technologies
can detect residues at around one part per quadrillion (like
