HEADLINES:
THE PESTICIDE TREADMILL
Consumer's Union [CU], publisher of CONSUMER REPORTS magazine, last month released a new book entitled PEST MANAGEMENT AT THE CROSSROADS.[1] The book describes how we could reduce the public health hazards and environmental dangers of pesticides by at least 75% in the next 25 years, at the same time increasing our agricultural yields. The basic idea is to shift farms away from reliance on chemical pesticides toward "integrated pest management," or IPM. IPM prevents outbreaks of pests by diagnosing the source of pest problems, then employing various preventive practices and biological controls to hold pest populations within acceptable limits. CU's 288-page book shows in detail how and where IPM is being used successfully today, how the shift from chemicals to IPM could be made, what it would cost, and what kinds of public policies would be needed to make it happen. It would be difficult to overstate the importance of this book.
The main author of PEST MANAGEMENT AT THE CROSSROADS is Charles M. Benbrook, former executive director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council. During Benbrook's tenure, the Board published several important studies of U.S. agriculture, including ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE, which presented case studies of 11 successful farms in the U.S. that don't rely on chemicals.[2]
CU's new book starts by explaining how IPM works, then explains why it is needed, making the following points:
** Despite the expenditure of more than $1 billion per year of taxpayers' funds to regulate pesticides, the public health hazards and environmental damage created by pesticides have not diminished during the past 30 years.[1,pgs.57-87]
** The nation is on a "pesticide treadmill" because pests become resistant to the effects of pesticides, requiring farms to adopt new and more potent poisons, to which pests eventually become resistant. There is no end to this toxic spiral. Resistance cannot be avoided; it is a natural part of the evolutionary process. When a group of pests is exposed to a toxic chemical, some of them survive. These hardy few reproduce and their offspring inherit genes resistant to this particular chemical. Excessive use of a pesticide speeds up the process by which pests develop resistance. More than 500 insects have now developed resistance to one or more pesticides; so have 270 species of weeds and 150 plant diseases.[1,pg.2]
** The pesticide treadmill operates in another way as well. By killing off beneficial organisms that help keep pests in check, pesticides often create the conditions under which pests can flourish. As the World Bank said recently, "Since the 1940s, pest management technology has increasingly relied on chemical pesticides. Although in some cases this use has led to significant short term alleviation of pest problems, it has not led to long term sustainable solutions. In fact, it has often led to further pest problems, putting farmers in a vicious cycle of pests and pesticides, and increasing the burden on the environment."[3]
Happily, an alternative exists: integrated pest management (IPM). CU's new book describes many examples of successful IPM programs, citing successful efforts on individual farms, and by government agencies. Compared to chemical techniques, such programs result in fewer pests, and higher crop yields, at lower costs.
In every sense, IPM is a rational approach to pest management. It relies on knowledge of the specific pests and specific crops grown in specific soils under specific climatic conditions. In essence, IPM substitutes knowledge for the "brute force" approach of toxic chemicals.
However, it is difficult to be optimistic about IPM being widely adopted until other changes have occurred in the way our society makes decisions. Unfortunately, the CU book shies away from discussing these more fundamental changes. The truth is that, at present, the pesticide corporations are simply too powerful to be influenced by rational argument or the need to protect public health and the environment. Worldwide, pesticide sales reached $29 billion in 1995[1,pg.32]--$10.4 billion in the U.S. alone.[1,pg.1] Six corporations dominate the industry, capturing 67.4 percent of total industry sales in 1995.[1,pg.31] The recent merger of Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy created Novartis, the world's largest agrichemical corporation, with annual sales of more than $4.4 billion in 1995 --almost double those of the next largest competitor, Monsanto.[1,pg.31]
In addition to exercising almost unimaginable political power, the pesticide industry is now off on a new tangent that promises to be immensely profitable by increasing the use of chemical pesticides. The new direction is genetically engineered crops.
There are two major paths being explored now by companies like Monsanto: (1) crops that are genetically engineered to withstand applications of herbicides, so that whole fields can be doused with herbicides to kill weeds. And (2), crops that are genetically engineered so that the crop itself becomes toxic to particular pests. Monsanto is leading the way in both technologies.[4] This year, Monsanto started selling soybean seeds that have been genetically altered to withstand Monsanto's herbicide, named Roundup. Roundup [glyphosate] kills just about everything green, so it must be applied to weeds with great care and in limited amounts, to avoid harming nearby crops. But now Monsanto has incorporated a petunia gene into soybeans, and the resulting soybeans are not harmed by Roundup. Now an entire field can be doused with Roundup, killing the weeds but not the soybeans. The short-term result is an increased soybean yield, and of course soils and nearby water supplies and wildlife contaminated with Roundup. Because neither the farmer nor Monsanto pays the price of ecological or public health damage from such techniques, the result is more profit for farm corporations, more profit for Monsanto, and increased costs to public health and the environment.[4]
Monsanto is also leading the way in the other new genetic engineering technology --giving whole plants the characteristics of a pesticide, by gene splicing. For example, consider Bt. BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS (Bt) is a natural bacteria that exists in the soil. Caterpillars that eat Bt develop serious stomach problems and die. The larval stages of many moths and beetles, and certain butterflies and flies, are killed by Bt. In recent years, Bt has been cultivated and manufactured into a product that can be sprayed on crops. So far as anyone knows, nothing besides the larval stages of these insects are affected by Bt. Bt is used by almost all organic farmers, and by many "conventional" farmers as well, especially on fruits and vegetables. (Organic farmers grow and market food and fiber certified as 100% free of toxic chemical residues.)
In essence, Bt is a public good --a freely-available benefit that nature has provided to us all, useful to anyone who wants to use it. Bt belongs to no one.
Now, however, Monsanto has decided to put Bt genes into cotton and other crops, for Monsanto's benefit. There are plans afoot to do the same for corn, potatoes and perhaps other crops as well. All the parts of the resulting plants become poisonous to certain pests. As a result, insect pests of many kinds will soon become resistant to Bt, and Bt will cease to be useful to farmers. No one disputes that this will happen --some say in 10 years, others say as soon as 3 years.[1,pgs.167,222] The result will be that Monsanto has destroyed this public good. Bt will be rendered ineffective as a pesticide. Those who rely on Bt will then have to substitute dangerous organophosphate and carbamate chemical pesticides.
As CU says, "The loss of Bt to resistance triggered by Bt-transgenic [genetically-engineered] plants would be a major setback for American agriculture, especially fruit and vegetable growers in the Southeast and organic producers nationwide. Insects that Bt can control include many difficult to manage pests leading to heavy reliance on insecticides in a wide range of crops--the cabbage looper, diamondback moth, major insect pests of cotton (bollworm, tobacco budworm), corn borer, the Colorado potato beetle, the beet armyworm, gypsy moth, spruce budworm, and many other tough to control pests. Bt foliar products [i.e., sprays] are the foundation of most... [high quality] IPM systems in Florida fruit and vegetable regions. Organic farmers producing certified produce are even more reliant on Bt products than their conventional neighbors because they are not able to use conventional pesticides without sacrificing their ability to market produce as organic."[1,pg.221]
If one were in the business of making chemical pesticides without a moral compass, there could be no better plan for promoting the sale of pesticides: use genetic engineering to destroy the effectiveness of the main non-chemical pesticide relied upon by the organic farming community. In a strict business sense, Monsanto has developed a winning strategic attack on its organic-farming competitors --a brilliant, almost diabolical, plan for crushing the competition. However, it is also a ruthless assault on the public, which has an inherent right to use Bt and to not have its use of Bt spoiled by one self-absorbed corporation. Monsanto's strategy --which it is presently carrying out --will inevitably lead to greater environmental damage and harm to public health from reliance on pesticidal chemical poisons.
CU recommends that EPA should become more assertive and "just say no" to "avoid draining agency resources on efforts to manage major new risks, like those posed by... the approval in 1995 and 1996 of plant varieties genetically engineered to produce... BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS (BT).... Widespread planting of BT-transgenic crops is likely to accelerate the emergence of resistance to BT, forcing farmers to switch to more toxic insecticides. This will increase risks EPA has been struggling to reduce."[1,pg.9] CU goes on: "...EPA should refuse to register new transgenic BT crop varieties and herbicide-resistant crop strains, and should revoke the registrations of any such products... shown to trigger genetic resistance among target pest populations."[1,pg.10]
Unfortunately, CU fails to come to grips with reality here. EPA --despite lip service that it pays to IPM --simply hasn't got what it takes to stand up to power like Monsanto's. And so the environment continues to deteriorate, public health is increasingly endangered, and public confidence in government diminishes further. The hope of achieving 100% IPM by the year 2020 fades as Monsanto and other giant corporations take the world in a direction that is profitable for them but destructive for virtually everyone else. Given who funds Congress and the President at re-election time, EPA's only conceivable role in this drama is to sit by, provide the necessary approvals, and give empty assurances that all is well.
This is an excellent, informative book. Everyone who cares about pesticides, public health, and the environment should be encouraged to read it. One can only wish that the book didn't skirt the central issue: Can corporations be made truly accountable to their neighbors, their compatriots, their shareholders, their employees and their customers? If so, how? It is THE key question. Is it asking too much to think that Consumer's Union, the nation's premier consumer protection organization, should speak clearly about the REAL reasons we're on the dreadful toxic treadmill their new book describes so convincingly?
--Peter Montague
---November 14, 1996---
HEADLINES:
BRAIN CANCER UPDATE
In the U.S., brain cancer has been steadily increasing about 0.7% per year since 1973. This steady increase is noteworthy by itself. However, among people over age 65, brain cancer has been increasing 2.9% each year, an astonishingly rapid rise in a cancer that is almost always fatal in the elderly. At this rate, the disease is doubling every 23 years among the elderly. Today roughly 17,500 Americans (9600 males, 7900 females) are diagnosed with new brain cancers each year.[1] During the period 1973-1990 brain cancer steadily increased in other industrialized countries as well, especially among the elderly.[2]
Naturally the question arises, are these increases real or do they simply reflect better diagnosis? Several careful studies of this question have concluded that much of the increase in brain cancer is real, and does not merely reflect better diagnosis.[3] For one thing, the steady increases began before the invention of modern diagnostic equipment. New imaging techniques (cat scans in the mid-1970s, and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] in the 1980s) did make the diagnosis of brain tumors easier and more accurate. When cat scans and MRI became available, brain tumors formerly missed were now found; on the other hand, non-cancer brain problems formerly misdiagnosed as brain tumors could now be properly identified as something besides cancer. Furthermore, analysis has determined that the AIDS epidemic is not the cause of the observable brain cancer increases.[3]
Although the causes of brain cancers remain a mystery, in all likelihood the problem has multiple sources including dental x-rays;[4] occupational exposures to chlorinated hydrocarbons, organic solvents, paints and oils;[5] pesticides;[6] electromagnetic fields (EMF);[7] hormonal status in women;[8] and N-nitroso compounds.[9]
Because brain cancers are increasing in both men and women, occupational exposures are unlikely to be a major cause. A new study published this month suggests that the artificial sweetener, aspartame (marketed as Nutrasweet and Equal), may be implicated.[10] At least half of the American people --knowingly or not --now expose themselves to aspartame in "diet" food products and soft drinks. Aspartame is 180 times as sweet as sugar, so provides sweet taste with fewer calories.
When G. D. Searle, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, sought approval for aspartame from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1973, a long controversy ensued.[11] Some scientists within the FDA suspected that aspartame might cause brain cancer in laboratory animals. If this were shown to be true, aspartame would have been banned under federal law. FDA initially approved aspartame for certain food uses in 1974, but two citizens --John W. Olney, M.D., and James S. Turner, challenged that decision and requested a full hearing. To settle the controversy and avoid the expense of a full hearing, FDA Commissioner Donald Kennedy established an independent Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) consisting of 3 qualified scientists from outside the agency. The PBOI reviewed the available data and drew conclusions from it. On October 1, 1980, the PBOI issued its decision, saying "the evidence suggested that aspartame might induce brain tumors" in laboratory rats and, accordingly, the PBOI concluded that aspartame "should not be approved for marketing until further animal testing was conducted to resolve the brain tumor issue." In response to the PBOI's findings, FDA revoked Searle's license to sell aspartame.[11,pg.38289]
However, later that same year (1981) a new FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., appointed by President Ronald Reagan, simply reversed the decision of the PBOI and licensed aspartame for "dry" uses as a substitute for sugar.[11] No new studies were initiated to shed light on the question of brain cancer. Under the guidance of Dr. Hayes, FDA simply reinterpreted the old data and asserted that the reinterpreted data showed that brain cancer was not a problem. Thus aspartame became a legal --though intensely controversial --food additive.
In 1983, Commissioner Hayes extended Searle's aspartame license to include its use as a sweetener in "diet" soft drinks, and aspartame sales took off. In 1985 Monsanto bought Searle, and Monsanto now aggressively markets Nutrasweet for "diet" sweeteners, selling roughly 20 million pounds of aspartame for use in the U.S. each year at $90 per pound, plus unknown quantities overseas. On average, Americans ingest 38 grams of aspartame per person per year.[12] (Meanwhile, intake of total calories per person per day in the U.S. has increased from 3300 in 1970 to 3700 in 1990, so "diet" foods and drinks are not having the desired effect, overall.)[13]
The aspartame study published this month, by John W. Olney of Washington University in St. Louis, suggests that the steep increases in brain cancer in Americans in the 1980s and 1990s may have been caused by exposure to aspartame.
Olney offers three reasons for concern:
(1) The kinds of cancer rising most rapidly in people (glioblastomas) are the same kind found in 3.8% of aspartame-fed rats in one of Searle's studies;
(2) Monsanto asserts that aspartame could not cause cancer because it breaks down into harmless constituents in the human stomach,[14] but Olney points to a 1993 study showing that aspartame can be nitrosated and therefore might be expected to become a N-nitroso compound in the human stomach. N-nitroso compounds are potent carcinogens, some linked to brain tumors.[15]
(3) Olney analyzes the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) data[1] and finds two sharp increases in brain cancers. He believes aspartame might have caused these increases because it was introduced rapidly, whereas other suspected causes of brain cancer (listed above) were introduced gradually and would not be expected to cause sharp increases. Olney says cancer requires several cell injuries, and older people may acquire many such injuries during their lives and may thus be ready to be "pushed over the edge" by exposure to aspartame. This could explain the short delays between introduction of aspartame to the American diet and the rapid rises in brain cancer that Olney points to in the NCI data. (Cancers are usually delayed by a decade or more after exposure to a cancer-causing agent, but Olney points to brain cancer increases only a couple of years after FDA approved aspartame.)
Wherever the truth lies, FDA is unlikely at this point to re-examine the safety of aspartame. To do so would be, in some sense, to admit the haste --perhaps it could even be termed foolhardiness --of its earlier decision to ignore the evidence of brain tumors in rats fed aspartame.
The issue back in 1980 was this: In one Searle study, 3.8% of aspartame-fed rats got brain tumors. What was the "normal" rate of brain tumors in this strain of rat (known as Sprague-Dawley rats)? Commissioner Hayes acknowledged that all of the data available to answer this question had "flaws" (his word) because the "normal" animals had ALL been exposed to experimental chemicals or drugs, or had been fed irradiated food. However, instead of ordering new studies that would avoid such flaws, to answer this important question Dr. Hayes simply asserted that a 3.8% rate of brain tumors in aspartame-fed rats was not significantly different from the rate of brain tumors in "normal" rats.[11,pgs.38312-38315] Furthermore, when the Commissioner applied two statistical tests (of his own choosing) to the data in this study, those tests showed significant increases in brain cancers among female rats fed aspartame. The Commissioner then removed one of the aspartame-fed rats from the study, asserting that its brain tumor had not been caused by aspartame. After the removal of this rat, the cancer increases were no longer statistically significant.[11,pg.38320] Thus FDA approval of aspartame appears to have been tainted by decisions based on something other than science. It seems reasonable to ask that such approval be reconsidered now, given that human brain cancers are steadily and rapidly increasing.
Nevertheless, FDA has dug in its heels on this issue, and it apparently will be left to independent researchers to examine the health consequences of exposing half (or more) of the population to aspartame. Given that funding for scientific research in the U.S. --including research at academic institutions --is increasingly controlled by private corporations, and not by government or other independent sources, it is difficult to see where the necessary research funds could come from. In any case, a huge experiment is being conducted now on more than 100 million Americans. Whether anyone cares to analyze the data from this experiment, or not, remains to be seen. --Peter Montague
Environmental Research Foundation . . P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . . Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send E-mail to INFO@rachel.clark.net with the single word HELP in the message; back issues also available via ftp from ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com. Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free.
