07/11/1995

Eliminating Pesticides May Create Needless Costs for Consumers

AUBURN, Ala. - Eliminating pesticide use in agricultural production may seem like a healthy approach to alleviating the public's fear of pesticide-tainted foods, but an Auburn University researcher says fears may be unfounded and overreacting to that fear may harm consumers' pocketbooks and health.

Robert Taylor, eminent scholar in Auburn's Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, has been studying the economic impacts of pesticide reduction in fruit and vegetable crops. His study, which was conducted through the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station at Auburn, addressed the repercussions of proposed pesticide regulations. Results suggest that severely limiting pesticide usage would be a lose-lose situation for consumers and farmers.

Taylor explained that there has been a push to mandate reduction or elimination of pesticides, particularly in fruit and vegetable production and processing. Fear of pesticide residues arose in recent years due in part to reports that chemical residues on fruits and vegetables may be harming consumers, especially small children. The Delaney Clause, which prohibits the use of carcinogenic pesticides in processed food products, also has complicated the issue.

The Delaney Clause, a 1958 amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, established a "zero tolerance" for potentially carcinogenic pesticides used in food products. Until the 1980s, the clause had limited impact on pesticides used in food production, but improved technologies have changed that.

"Since the enactment of the Delaney Clause, our scientific procedures for detecting pesticides have become more precise," explained Taylor. "We can now detect minute amounts of chemicals on foods, so 'zero tolerance' has taken on a new meaning."

As recently as 20 years ago science could measure residues in parts per million. Today these amounts can be measured in parts per trillion and quadrillion. One part per quadrillion is a million times smaller than billion. A coffee drinker would have to dissolve a teaspoon of sugar in 1.3 million gallons of coffee (enough to fill two regulation-sized swimming pools) to equal a one part per billion reading.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) applied the concept of negligible risk to enforcement of the clause, but a 1992 U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the EPA interpretation and called for all additives that are carcinogenic to be prohibited, regardless of the degree of risk involved.

This decision may result in the banning of more than 30 pesticides. Congress is considering rewriting the Delaney Clause to include a judgement of negligible human health risks in the criteria, but even if rewritten, the clause may limit the selection of pesticides available to farmers.

Taylor, who admits he was pesticide-leery when he began the study, said the results of his study have changed his mind about pesticide residues because the data show that the health threat is minimal, and often nonexistent.

"Data show that more than 60 percent of the samples taken by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 1992 showed absolutely no pesticide residues on the samples," said Taylor. "Less than two percent of the samples showed residue levels that violated FDA standards, and the remaining 38 percent or so had levels of pesticides that were below allowed levels."

Taylor explained that pesticides are considered to have threshold and nonthreshold risks. For threshold pesticides, the negligible risk standard used by EPA and FDA is generally 100 times lower than the maximum dose that causes no ill effects to experimental animals. For nonthreshold pesticides, the risk standard is based on one chance in a million of developing pesticide-related cancer over a 70-year lifetime.

"The FDA concluded their study by stating '...pesticide residues in food are well below established standards for negligible risk,'" said Taylor. "These results suggest that there is very little threat to consumers from pesticide residues in food. In addition, taking pesticides away from producers and processors may cause much more severe problems to consumer's physical and economic health."

For the study, Taylor considered two pesticide reduction scenarios -- a 50 percent reduction in use and total elimination of pesticides from fruit and vegetable production and processing systems. "These criteria for the study may seem extreme," said Taylor, "but they are consistent with proposals introduced into the U.S. Congress, and with the strict interpretation of the Delaney Clause."

"If current pesticide usage is cut back 50 percent, wholesale prices will increase by nine to 19 percent, depending on the commodity grown," he said. "These costs would be passed on to the consumer, resulting in a three to nine percent increase in retail prices for fruits and vegetables."

"Total elimination of pesticides from the fruit and vegetable industry would increase wholesale prices 29 to 64 percent, and retail prices would thus increase from eight to 28 percent," he added.

Taylor noted that cost of production would increase 30 percent if pesticide use is cut in half, and by 75 percent if pesticide use is eliminated. "These cost increases correspond approximately to per-acre yield decreases of 25 percent and 60 percent, respectively for the two scenarios," he said.

In response to higher prices, consumption of fruit and vegetables would likely decrease and these foods would be replaced in the diet with other, perhaps less healthy, food products, said Taylor.

With domestic pesticide restrictions, more foreign fruits and vegetables will be imported into the United States, which poses another risk for consumers. "FDA data show that 43 percent of imported fruits and 34 percent of imported vegetables have pesticide residues, and imported products violated more residue restrictions than domestically grown food," he said. "Imports now account for about 15 percent of domestic consumptions, and much more of the market when U.S.-produced products are out of season. If importation increases, the only way to ensure that pesticides were not present in these foods is to ban imports or impose a pesticide ban on all foreign products destined for importation."

"Severe restrictions on pesticide use may have unintended adverse consequences on consumers' health," Taylor added. "Substantially reducing pesticide use will cause an increase in naturally occurring toxins, some of which are carcinogenic."

Congress soon will be voting on bills that would repeal the Delaney Clause's zero-risk provision and also protect a farmer's access to pesticides. According to Taylor, if these or similar bills do not pass, farmers and consumers will face a lose-lose situation. "Farmers will unnecessarily lose the ability to produce safe food at a reasonable price and consumers will pay more for these foods, and perhaps face other risks," he said.

-30-

News from:

Office of Ag Communications & Marketing

Auburn University College of Agriculture
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
3 Comer Hall, Auburn University
Auburn, AL 36849
334-844-4877 (PHONE) 334-844-5892 (FAX)

Contact Jamie Creamer, 334-844-2783 or jcreamer@auburn.edu
Contact Katie Jackson, 334-844-5886 or smithcl@auburn.edu

July 11, 1995