THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, August 26, 1995 TAG: 9508260016
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A10 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Another View
SOURCE: By JOAN CLAYBROOK
LENGTH: Medium: 96 lines
The U.S. Congress has apparently decided that protecting the interests of agribusiness and food processors is more important than protecting the health of American children. That's the only conclusion you can draw from legislation passed shortly before the summer recess.
The House passed a bill that included Rep. James Walsh's amendment to suspend the ``Delaney Clause,'' the federal law that bans cancer-causing chemicals in processed food. The Senate majority leadership proposed undermining Delaney in its attempted rollback of health and safety standards, misleadingly termed regulatory ``reform.'' It stalled, but is sure to rear its deceptive head again.
Then the so-called Food Quality Protection Act of 1995 was introduced in the Senate. It purports to improve the Delaney standard and answer criticism about the lack of protection for children from pesticides in their food, but fails on both counts. The bill was heartily endorsed by The National Food Processors Association.
Although it refers to protecting children, the Senate bill fails to provide specific means of putting into effect the National Academy of Science's recommendations, such as considering multiple routes of exposure and compound effects of multiple pesticides. Even the implementation of the generalized protection is weakened by the qualification of when ``practicable.''
The bill also shifts the burden of proof to the EPA to show a pesticide is unsafe, instead of having the manufacturer show it is safe. This is a cynical and manipulative attempt to vastly overburden the agency, just when the House has passed a bill cutting its budget by 30 percent.
These efforts ironically come just as a new report reveals that potentially dangerous levels of pesticides are commonly found in baby food. Not so ironically, they come right after agribusiness and food-processing companies contributed large amounts of money to finance the election campaigns of Walsh and others involved in the repeal.
The report, ``Pesticides in Baby Food,'' was published by the Environmental Working Group. It discloses that while there is no immediate risk to infants, there may be long-term dangers from these contaminants, some of which are classified as probable human carcinogens.
Our protection against such substances needs to be strengthened, not gutted.
Because Delaney only covers processed foods, the National Academy of Science reported that at most, it applies to just one-fifth of the cancer risk we face from pesticides in our diet. For example, the Delaney Clause doesn't cover fresh fruits and vegetables, yet children eat a lot of these foods. That makes them particularly susceptible to harm from toxic pesticides because, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, their diet includes up to 21 times more fruits, vegetables and juices per pound of body weight than the average American.
This happens at a time when children's growing bodies are extremely vulnerable. The consequences are not just cancer, either. According to the National Academy of Sciences, chronic low-level exposure to some pesticides may be linked to brain and nerve damage, and behavioral problems. Certain pesticides have been shown to disturb natural hormone production and have frightening impact on reproductive systems.
It may not do any good to wash your food, either. The USDA recently found six pesticides on grapes, seven on peaches and eight on apples that had already been washed and prepared for eating.
Amazingly, Congressman Walsh declared, ``These are not poisonous chemicals, terrible carcinogens. These are chemicals that have always been licensed by the EPA.''
So he wants to gut the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to do anything about toxic pesticides in our food, and justifies the safety of his action by citing as authority the very agency whose hands he wants to tie. Even in Washington, this could be a record for audacity.
Once introduced into the environment, some of these toxic chemicals are remarkably durable. Pesticides banned in the early 1970s are still showing up in supermarket baby food. While we debate the safety of such substances, childhood brain cancer and leukemia have increased 33 percent since 1973, and cancer has become the primary disease killer for children under the age of 14.
If the health and safety of our children could be put at risk by suspension of the Delaney Clause, who benefits? The people who make and use chemical pesticides, and those who process the treated foods aren't complaining. But why believe lobbyists for the National Food Processors Association, who say the pesticides affected by the Walsh amendment and Senate legislation pose a negligible risk?
Congress should stop considering the special interests that give so generously to re-election efforts. If legislators want to be truly objective about the Delaney Clause, they can give back PAC money accepted from those fighting to weaken the law. We need to strengthen the Delaney Clause at a negligible risk to corporate profits, instead of repeal it at a not-so-negligible risk to our children's health. MEMO: Ms. Claybrook is president of Public Citizen, a national nonprofit
organization that monitors Congress and protects the public interest.
by CNB