ESCAPE THE EXPERIMENT

Saskatchewan uses one third of all the pesticides used in Canada, and has the highest rate of certain cancers in all of Canada.  Here are some scientific studies, tests, surveys and references that support the position that agricultural chemicals are a threat to human health.

 Some people falsely or mistakenly (there’s some of each out there) believe that agricultural chemicals, when properly used, are safe.  Information presented to us by proponents of chemicals showed:

• In most cases, the opinions presented were not backed up by scientific references which could be looked up and assessed;
• Where references were given , the methodology is shaky, designed to prove what they want;
• In some cases, the reference presents findings that are directly opposite findings of other researchers and sometimes the results are opposed to the conclusions in the paper. 

For example, Monsanto was thought to have contaminated Milwaukee’s groundwater supply.  In a society of trust in free enterprise, Monsanto was given the job of testing to see if the ground water was contaminated.  They found no contamination.  They only monitored chemical in shallow wells in the system.  The contamination was in the deep wells.  They designed the methods to avoid finding the contamination.  They were caught and punished.    A large American laboratory which tested many of the herbicides and insecticides used in the USA falsified data on testing of some of these chemicals.   Their executive went to jail for it.  Another lab has also been found guilty of falsifying data for pesticide registration processes.  These are only three examples, albeit spectacular, of shaky methodology or conclusions opposed to data.  You wouldn’t lie about data if it said what you want it to.

Hey, did you know that spell check knows how to spell Monsanto (with capital letter)? How about that!?

If you want to know a lot about pesticides, I recommend the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) at www.pesticides.org.  Other websites also support our position, but this one is very strong scientifically, and presented in a straightforward manner.  It is amazing!

FACTS TO PONDER

• Proponents of chemical use suggest that the existence of the Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency  (PMRA) protects Canadians by preventing harmful chemicals from being used or by ensuring that those chemicals are used properly so as to eliminate health and environmental impacts. 
• However, this organization has a backlog of at least a decade to even bring existing registrations up to date with newer testing methodology.   Standard test protocols now in place have not been applied to most chemicals on the market.
• In the USA, for example, a 1986 survey of 92 food use pesticides showed that 62% lacked required cancer tests, 73% lacked required birth defect tests, and 73% lacked required mutation tests.   While some progress has been made, most chemicals that are currently registered have not completed their re-registration process.  In Canada the same kind of re-registration backlog exists, and the resources to get caught up are not there.
• Even if they get caught up, a number of tests we feel would be necessary to ensure safety will not have been done.  Many pesticides have effects on immune system, reproductive system, neurological system, endocrine system (hormone production and expression).  Present test protocols focus on toxicity and on cancer causing ability.  There are a lot of things the registration process is not testing for that we already know are caused by some pesticides.
• For example, it is well proven that combinations of chemicals, including mixtures of active ingredients and also the mixture of active ingredients and “inactive ingredients” are far more toxic and show more pronounced sub-lethal effects (eg: disrupt hormone balances, affect enzyme functions, affect neurological function, affect immune system function, affect reproductive system) than the individual chemical by itself.  These “synergistic’ effects as they are called, result when more than one chemical is present at the same time.  As you should be aware (or is that beware), most chemical formulations include at least one active ingredient and one or more inactive ingredients.  In a number of cases, the inactive ingredient is more toxic and of more concern for sub-lethal effects than the active ingredient.  Their impact together is totally untested.  (1) , (8)
• In United States geological Survey testing, 95% of surface water and 50% of groundwater sources contained at least one of the agricultural chemicals being tested for (2). They weren't testing for every possible chemical, but of the ones they were looking for, they found some in most water supplies. Fifty percent of the surface water sources contained 5 or more agricultural chemicals, and 25% of the wells had 2 or more chemicals. They were not testing for inactive ingredients and they did not test for all the chemicals on the market. And yet, the people consuming water from those water systems were consuming mixtures of chemicals that had never been tested for synergistic effects. Synergistic effects are not even considered in testing for registration, but synergistic mixtures are present in the environment. The regulators have no idea what these mixtures mean for people or for wildlife. 
• The acceptable limits for chemical ingestion are based on doses of individual chemicals. If you have 2 at the acceptable level, you are over. Commonly, when food is tested, they find three or more chemicals in the food. Individually, the chemicals fall within tolerance levels. Together they often do not. There is no real data on levels of exposure through food. Our food is not routinely tested to see what level of residues or how many kinds of residues they contain. When food is tested, the results are disturbing. A few foods commonly consumed by children were tested for pesticide residues. Apples tested positive 98% of the time, peaches 96% of the time, carrots 78% of the time, green beans 54% of the time. Furthermore, one in four of the peaches and one in eight of the apples contained more residue than the US EPA considers acceptable. That is too much from just one peach. Children who eat two peaches and an apple get a very high dose that day. Add some carrots, a few beans and the dose keeps climbing. Complicating things further, over 50% of the apples sampled contained multiple pesticides, as did over 40% of the peaches. Some apple samples contained 10 different pesticides, and some peaches contained 9 different pesticides (1). The "allowable levels" are also set using "average" consumption data. So if you happen to really like, for example, apples, then you consume more than the "average" amount of apples used to set the limits.
• Food is not routinely tested.  Water also is seldom tested.  Air is not tested.  There have not been diet studies.  Canada does not track pesticide sales data, and until recently had no pesticide poisoning data collection system.  Physicians are not trained to identify such poisoning, and many people do not seek treatment for headaches, nausea or intestinal problems that have short duration.    The regulators don’t have a clue what this will mean in 20 or 30 years.  Many chemicals on the market have been incompletely tested, and some are untested but released under special circumstances.

• Chemical proponents often suggest that when properly applied, pesticides are safe.  However, any applicator must be aware that drift is inevitable.  Drift is greatest from aerial application where typically 40% of the pesticide is lost to drift. (7).  The National Research Council estimates that under ideal (no wind) conditions, 5% is lost, while up to 60% is lost with wind.  Drift from aerial application has been found to range from 100 meters to 1600 meters (1 mile).  In virtually every study available (total of 16), pesticides were detected as far away from the application as samples were taken. 
• Drift from ground application is less substantial, but can still be a significant concern, especially if done in wind. 
• Obviously, since agricultural chemicals were found in the USGS water studies, and because food studies show agricultural chemical residues in the food, there is no question that people are being exposed to them. Few people have not at least once or more inhaled chemical as a result of drift. Fewer yet have avoided ingesting residues in their food or water, or absorbed it while bathing or swimming. So the next question is "do chemicals pose a health risk?"
• Proponents of agricultural chemicals say that they are safe if used properly. In other words, if you can avoid ingesting, inhaling or absorbing them, they are safe. However, when faced with the drift, water testing and food testing data, we know we are being exposed to them. What are the risks associated with this exposure?

NCAP looked at the 26 pesticides most used in the USA (6).  Of these pesticides, 12 are classified as carcinogens by the EPA.  Some pesticides cause birth defects, some cause miscarriages, some cause low birth weights, and others cause reduced fertility.  Of the big 26 mentioned above, 9 have a harmful effect on male reproduction, 17 caused decreased pregnancy success, with miscarriages, still births and reduced birth weights being common in lab tests.  We could list an endless number of individual accounts of poisoning from improper application practices, but won’t bother with that here.

For children and pregnant women, there are special risks.  Cell differentiation, and overall development is controlled by hormones that are produced in the body in minute amounts.  There is enough evidence to suggest that a number of agricultural chemicals, and especially combinations of chemicals, have an effect that can disrupt glandular functions in humans.  While this might not have a large impact on an adult, who has already undergone their developmental sequence, a fetus or a child who is rapidly changing can be badly effected by even tiny amounts of certain chemicals or combinations.  The effects may not show up for many years.  It will be difficult to point to the time that the mother got sprayed while jogging, or the time she was sitting on the treated grass, but there is enough evidence to prove that endocrine disruption is a serious risk. So serious that many school boards, including the City of Regina’s, have discontinued use of lawn care chemicals around schools. 

Farm workers are also at very high risk of suffering ill effects due to their contact with chemicals.  A recent review of studies of farm workers and their risk of cancer describing seven studies in four states as well as nationwide, found that farm workers suffered above average frequency from liver cancer, lung cancer, cancer of the pharynx, cancer of the stomach, prostate cancer and testicular cancer (9).   A survey of babies born in Imperial County, CA, found that parents working in agriculture had approximately double the risk of having children born with reduced limbs (10).

One of the test protocols that will be used for new chemicals is for endocrine disrupting activity, however, most of the previously registered chemicals have not been re-tested, and will not be for some time.  Nor are any of these chemicals being tested for endocrine disruption activity as a mixture with other chemicals and few even with the inactive ingredients with which they are applied as part of the formulation. 

5) We have already expressed concerns about the testing that is used to register agricultural chemicals.  However, the tests that are used and that were used previously may not be accurate in many cases.  Several executives of two American companies who did the testing for registration of many of the agricultural chemicals presently registered, either did time in jail, or are doing time now in jail for falsifying data with respect to the testing of agricultural chemicals (3,4,5). Who knows how much more test data on presently registered chemicals was falsified and not caught? 

6)  There are myths spread by the chemical industry that are not true or are very misleading.    Roundup, for example, is said to be completely gone from your field in 3 days.  However, a survey of actual soil testing data where people were looking for glyphosate residue after application found retention times varying from 19 days (1 reference) to almost 3 years (1 reference).  The most common scenario was about 110 days.  In tests of lettuce grown following glyphosate application, residues of glyphosate were found in the lettuce, six months after the application.

The benign nature of glyphosate is also a myth. “ Laboratory tests have found adverse effects in all standard categories of laboratory toxicology testing.  These include medium term toxicity (salivary gland lesions), long term toxicity (inflamed stomach linings), genetic damage (in human blood cells), effects on reproduction (reduced sperm counts in rats; increased frequency of abnormal sperm in rabbits), and carcinogenicity (increased frequency of liver tumors in male rats and thyroid cancer in female rats).

(9)

2-4D, the most widely used herbicide in the world, and a herbicide that people think is safe to apply on their lawn and garden, causes a wide variety of problems including vomiting, convulsions, disruption of the activity of nervous system chemicals, reduction in the ability of blood to carry oxygen and form clots, and gene mutation in hamster muscle cell cultures. (10).

  Another myth, spread by Monsanto, is that glyphosate products are “safer than table salt”.  This claim was challenged by the attorney- general of New York State, saying that Monsanto had engaged in “false and mis-leading  advertising”.  Monsanto was forced to circulate a retraction refuting their false and misleading claims.

Glyphosate and 2-4D are two very common chemicals. The website of the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides can give you similar analyses for other commonly used agricultural chemicals, showing retention times, toxic record and so on. 

CONCLUSION

 “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause- and- effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”  - Children’s Health Project

What it comes down to is this; the use of agricultural chemicals (as well as genetically modified organisms) is a massive experiment: An experiment that is already showing dramatic negative effects on the environment, animal health and human health.  An experiment because not an adequate amount of time has passed to prove the more long-term effects.  Sadly, the majority of all living things are the unwilling participants of this experiment.  I do not want to be a part of it, and try to minimize my exposure to these chemicals.  My son and I eat organic food, and I hope that my friends will choose to escape the experiment too.

I can understand the reasons why farmers turn to chemicals as a means of crop protection, I have a 2 acre market garden and when it is raining it is tough to keep ahead of the weeds.  Then it’s tough to catch up.   I hope those of you who use pesticides as a farm management tool will appreciate that this is not a judgement of them, but a challenge to some myths that they believe. 

If you still use chemicals, please use them carefully, with respect to your health and that of the lives around you. 

If you still eat chemicals, good luck, I hope they don’t harm you. 

And to those who believe in a fair trade, local economy based organic world, please make these facts and others from NCAP into gossip known throughout the land.   It will help to encourage more people to escape the experiment, too.

REFERENCES

• US Dept. of Agriculture.  Agricultural Marketing Service, science and technology.  1998.  Pesticide data Program: annual summary calendar year 1996.  Washington DC, Feb.

• USGS.  1998.  Pesticides in Surface and ground water of the United States: Summary of results of the National Water Assessment Program (NAWQA).  www.water.wr.usgs.gov/pnsp/allsum/#t1.

• Marshall, E.  1983.  Federal Court Finds IBT Officials Guilty of Fraud.  Science 222:488.

• USEPA.  Office of Pesticide Programs. 1983. Summary of the IBT review program.  Washington DC.

• USEPA. Communications, Education and Public Affairs. 1994. Press Advisory.  Craven Laboratories, owner and 14 employees sentenced for falsifying pesticide tests. Washington DC, Mar 4.

• NCAP.  1999.  Are Pesticides Hazardous to Our Health?  Journal of Pesticide Reform / Summer 1999 vol 19, No. 2.  www.pesticides.org.

• National Research Council.  Board on Agriculture.  Committee on Long Range Soil and Water conservation.  1993.  Soil and water quality; an agenda for agriculture.  Washington DC. : National Academy Press.  Pgs 323-324.

• NCAP.  Indiscriminately From the Skies.  1995.  Journal of Pesticide Reform.  Vol 15, No. 1.  www.pesticides .org.

•  Zahm,   S.A.  and A. Blair.    1993.  Cancer among migrant and seasonal farmworkers:  An              epidemiologic review and research agenda.  Amer. J. Indust. Med.  24:753-766

• Schwartz, D.A., L.A. Newsum, and R.M. Heifetz.  1986.  Parental occupation and birth outcome in an agricultural community.  Scand.  J.  Work Environ. Health  12:51-54

• Baird,  F.   1993.   Food, Pesticides and Cancer.   Immune Perspectives.   Center for Advancement in Cancer Education.  Vol. 1, number 2