As research finds further evidence of pesticides’ damage to health, should food with residues be labelled?

Richard Bruce, a farm manager whose health broke down after exposure to these chemicals, recently wrote:

“Very few people realise that farmers and grain store operators have for decades been pouring OPs and other poisons (pesticides, fungicides) into harvested grains and oilseeds.

“Fewer still realise that the application methods inevitably result in massively excessive spot treatments and that no one in authority knows the deadly dangers posed when mixing these chemicals together or heating them.

“Many chemicals have been used – from DDT through malathion, pirimiphos methyl, chlorpyrifos methyl even mixtures of those and other chemicals such as pyrethroids like bifenthrin. Some were approved long after the dangers were known”.

Amazingly, he commented, treated grain can be eaten immediately after treatment but bags that have contained that grain are rendered too toxic to be used again to store food.

Richard points out that back in 1939 it was illegal to trade food adulterated with poisons cross-border, but in more recent years it has been an EU requirement to protect stored grain from insects for at least 5 years, some buyers refusing grains that were not treated with insecticides.

After World War II, chemical pesticides became the most important form of pest control. In the early days of pesticide use, it became apparent that it was impossible to reduce residue levels to zero and the authorities decided to allow permitted levels in our food. From that small step, decades later, they may now be mixed with our staple foods.

Photo in the Progressive Farmer where Scott Williams, DTN Entomologist, offers an alternative to pesticide use

Richard sent emails to the Food Standards Agency in June last year regarding the failure to label the presence of these sensitising chemicals on food labels but has still not received the promised response. He also raised the issue in the Consultation on Allergens without success.

The writer was shocked to read elsewhere that, as Richard says, the currently favoured minimum tillage systems rely heavily on chemicals like glyphosate and chemical companies are pushing the ‘fight against the plough’ to boost their profits.

All this pesticide use inevitably results in higher residues in food – which do not have to be declared or included in labelling, but which may well damage immune systems and has had severe effects on the workers who handle them.

In January this year a review in Synthetic Chemicals and Health found that current research suggests exposure to synthetic pesticides may be associated with adverse health outcomes.

It linked exposure to synthetic pesticides among agricultural workers to certain cancers, DNA damage, oxidative stress, neurological disorders, and respiratory, metabolic, and thyroid effects. The authors recommend more research on respiratory effects, DNA damage, oxidative stress, metabolic outcomes, and thyroid effects.

The writer noticed a reference on Richard’s website to a Channel 4 programme by Critical Eye in the ‘90s which referred to concern raised about the inexplicable rise in diabetes in children – inexplicable only if the effects of organophosphates in our food are ignored.

A search found several studies about a link between pesticide use and diabetes; one was a 2018 study published in The American journal Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine (The National Center for Biotechnology Information) with the title: Association between diabetes and pesticides: a case-control study among Thai farmers. The abstract opened: “Pesticides are an agricultural chemical suspected to be a significant contributor to a global diabetes pandemic. The purpose of this study was to confirm previous findings of the link between diabetes and some agricultural pesticides and to identify the particular pesticides that are most likely to pose a risk of diabetes in the community”.

The ‘triggers’ for a range of serious diseases, including Coeliac, Crohn’s & Ulcerative Colitis and allergies are not yet known, but many sufferers react badly to wheat. The rise in the incidence of these diseases seems to coincide with the increasing use of pesticides and fungicides – but as yet only NGOs such as these are stating a connection.

Could we improve on the precautionary principle – detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU)? This relates to an approach whereby if there is the possibility that a given policy or action might cause harm to the public or the environment and if there is still no scientific consensus on the issue, the policy or action in question should not be pursued.

Sadly, as yet there is no consensus; there is scientific evidence that pesticides are harmful and also studies which assert that, properly administered, they do not harm human health. Less toxic alternatives include one entomologist’s finding that a change in the balance of oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen in the air can be as effective as fumigants when controlling pests in grain stored in bins.

The concerned individual can only avoid ingesting pesticide residues by eating organic food – hoping that standards are being maintained by regular inspections.

 

 

 

 

,