Do Pesticide Residues in Food Pose a Significant Risk to Consumer Health - Essay Example

? Do pesticide residues in food pose a significant risk to consumer health? This research paper is devoted to a striking issue of pesticide residues in food and potential harm it may cause on human health. A modern science is working at development of new measurement mechanisms of pesticides level in food. Thus, traditional MLRS are complemented by ARfD currently. In such a way, EU regulations on permissible level of pesticides in food are more detailed in updated 2008 version of EC regulation 396/2005. Consequently, a special attention is paid to children, unborn and vegetarians as the most risky group. Moreover, those involved in pesticides application are also protected by modern EU regulation on pesticides. What is more important is the finding that personal protection of individuals against pesticides in food together with EU regulations guarantees human health protection. These conclusions were made on the basis of literature review of contemporary scientific works and researches (books, scientific journals, texts of EU regulations, on-line journal articles, statistic data etc). Thus a holistic approach to reduction of harm caused by pesticides in food is the only one possible way out to save our harvests and lives. Introduction Fruits and vegetables are known all over the world as the healthiest food. This kind of nutrition enforces human organism in order it could resist cancer and heart attacks (Weichenthal, Moase and Chan, 2010). Fruits and vegetables are considered full of vitamins and minerals. Different phytochemicals and fiber of fruits and vegetables build a protective shell inside a human organism. Unfortunately, the world is developing at full speed, population is growing and developed technologies enable food producers to enrich harvest to the greatest extent. For this purpose agricultural sector is focused on pesticide usage in fruits and vegetables nurture. Pesticides residue in food may be dangerous for human health and holistic effect of fruits and vegetables can be quite opposite. Thus human organism is exposed to cancer and neurological disorders. Imported fruits and vegetables are full of pesticides. Nearly 40% of them are dangerous for human health. For example, American domestically produced food contains three times fewer pesticides than imported fruits and vegetables. In accordance with the latest data, America is stricken by a burst of illnesses, such as “hepatitis A from strawberries, Cyclospora from raspberries, and E. coli- infection from alfalfa sprouts and lettuce” (Alarcon et al. 2005, p.456). Pesticides in food: risk measurement Availability of pesticide tests in America leaves much to be desired. Carcinogenicity as a damaging effect caused by pesticides is acclaimed in America and such kind of tests is usually conducted. What about reproductive effects and other chronic diseases? Less than 21% of pesticides used in America have been tested and of course public is not sure whether it consumes healthy or hazardous food (No Evidence of Health Benefits 2009). A lack of proper financing restricts pesticide testing in America. It is possible to suppose that every consumer of fruits and vegetables is potentially at risk and is not even aware of the real hazard caused by pesticides. Farmers are at the greatest risk, because they work with pesticides directly. In accordance with statistics, farmers, railroads and electrical lines workers suffer from leukemia or cancer of the lymphatic system (No Evidence of Health Benefits 2009). Lung cancer is a disease which is often met among pesticide applicators while farm workers suffer from liver cancer and leukemia. In accordance with researches conducted by German scientists and researchers, usage of pesticides, PCBs, dioxin act hazardously as well as endocrine disrupters do. Moreover, the most dangerous types of food are “strawberries, cherries, apples, Mexican cantaloupe, Chilean grapes, raspberries, apricots, peas, peaches, nectarines, and spinach” (Castorina et al. 2010, p. 18). These types of food are exposed to pesticides contamination to the greatest extent. There are also fruits and vegetables, which are exposed to pesticide residue to the lowest extent. These are: “avocados, onions, scallions, corn, cauliflower, cabbage, broccoli, green peas, carrots, sweet potatoes, and blueberries” (Castorina et al. 2010, p. 18). What is even more frightening is that pesticides residue in meat and fish also. Fatty products will have a greater level of pesticide residue in comparison with food, which is less fatty. EU Regulation 396/2005 on pesticides in food As far as we can see, a problem of pesticides in food is rather serious. Governments of different countries and European Union have been focused on the harmful effects of pesticides since 70s. Numerous regulations and acts are currently revised for the sake of human health and decrease of harmful effects caused by pesticides. The European Union regulation (EC regulation 396/2005) underlines that pesticide usage in food can be used if justified that no harmful effects is caused on producers, consumers, farmers or others involved. Environmental protection and efficiency of pesticide usage are also taken admitted by this regulation. As practice shows, consumers are exposed to pesticide risk and thus EU regulation 396/2005 was revised in 2008. Currently, it is acclaimed that pesticide residue is possible unless it doesn’t exceed a maximum residue level (MRL) (Regulation 396/2005 EC). The European Commission has determined MRLs for different types of food and animal feed. Default MRL is 0.01 mg/kg. In such a way, the European Commission protects human health, ensures health safety of children and vegetarians and other groups of consumers (Wigle, Donald, Turner, Krewski, 2009). In order to ensure that the level of MRL is the lowest, food producers have to provide the EU with information about the minimum amounts of pesticide required for a crop and the residue level protection. Another institution, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) acclaims that provided level is not hazardous for European and non-European consumer groups. In such a way, it is clearly seen that European Commission underlines food safety over plant protection. Nevertheless, the level of pesticides applied may differ with regard to environment of a certain country. For example, the southern European States where climate is warmer, different insects occur and in order to neutralize them, a greater level of insecticides usage is required. Therefore there is no the only one appropriate way to determine MRLs. The European Commission develops different strategies directed not only on MRLs determination, but also on improvement on pesticide usage in EU. In accordance with this strategy, pesticide free cultivation should be lowered by raising user awareness and encouraging innovations in this field (Regulation 396/2005 EC). There are two basic strategies, which have been properly considered by the European Parliament and the Council. The first strategy is restriction of health hazardous products in the market. In such a way, food producers would think about substitution of harmful pesticide residue in food by alternative non-chemicals (Regulation 396/2005 EC). In accordance with the second proposal, it is relevant to reduce potential risks of pesticides residue in food. This proposal implies cooperation of scientific developments directed on equipment usage in the process of pesticide application and education of those involved in pesticide application. The second proposal is perfecting internal market functioning and improving public health. A common feature of strategies proposed by the EU Commission enables agricultural sector to function properly on the community level. Revised 396/2005/EC regulation implies that more harmonized relations between European and non-European markets can be established. A cooperation of agricultural sectors of different Member States will ensure public health safety. In accordance with new improvements of regulation 396/2005, pesticide can’t be authorized unless MRL is established; a special attention to the most vulnerable groups: children, unborn and vegetarians (Stokstad Nov 2004). Consequently, the regulation 396/2005 revision 2008 propagates the following: “....public health should be given priority over the interests of crop protection, thus it is necessary to ensure that such residues should not be present at levels presenting an unacceptable risk to humans and, where relevant, to animals” (Wigle, Donald, Turner, Krewski, 2009). The abovementioned claim is ensured by introducing the Acute Reference Dose (ARfD), which should be taken into account next to MRLs. This new measurement is defined as follows: “ARfD is the pesticide dose that can be ingested over a short period of time, usually during one day, without appreciable health risks (taking into account sensitive groups within the population)” (Regulation 396/2005 EC). A complicated nature of pesticides measurement and prevention Of course, all these measurements and calculations are efficient theoretically, but in reality a lot of complexities may occur. Zero risk is an ideal. Scientists and researchers work in the direction to reach it. Nevertheless, consumers can protect themselves from pesticides residue in food, which is risky to their health. For example, they can introduce a lot of different products in their nutrition; they should rinse fruits and vegetables thoroughly in water; consumers should trim fat from meat and fish thus decreasing levels of pesticide, which residues in fatty material. Toxicologists widen the scope of potential health risk from pesticides residue in the following way: they claim that a proper attention of consumers should be paid to the way food is stored or handled; nutrition should be various and food choices should be more appropriate. Another danger caused by pesticides is not only concentrated on internal influence on human health, but also on toxicants and air pollutants. Therefore not only food consumption, but also food handling and storing should be taken into account by consumers. Moreover, the places of recreation should be chosen from environmental areas where pollutants or contaminants are absent. Opponents of harmful effects of pesticide residue in food tend to claim that it is more harmful in case pesticides reside outdoors. Thus there is another movement of proponents supporting the idea that pesticides cause more harmful effects on environment. In the report conducted several years ago (Kaiser 2005), it is found out that wildlife suffers great loses because of pesticides. With this regard, pesticides harmful effect should be considered in a broader context: “humanity neither understood nor appreciated the environmental effects of its headlong plunge into the chemical age” (Castorina et al. 2010, p. 34). Wildlife great losses can be found in the decrease of animals or birds number. In the beginning of 90s a striking conclusion was made by researchers, who claimed that after a toxic soil fumigant, metam-sodium was spilt in California, aquatic ecosystem suffered greatly (Greene, Pohanish 2010). This is the example of a hazardous effect caused by pesticides on environment in the history of America. Therefore a harmful effect caused by pesticide residue should be considered not only on food consumers, but also on all people who don’t consume food full of pesticides (Greene, Pohanish 2010). Still, environmental hazard caused by pesticides is a topic for another study. We are more concerned about health risks caused by pesticides in food. Not only different kinds of illness may be triggered by pesticides in food, but also a healthy individual may be exposed to risk because of pesticides’ destructive effect made on immune system. This is another serious potential health risk caused by pesticides in food. This harmful effect is made in the following way: “the normal response of the human immune system to invading viruses, bacteria, parasites, and tumors” (Gross 2010, p. 20) may be halted by pesticides in food. Unfortunately, this harmful effect of pesticides in food is not properly considered by scientists and researchers. In the conducted researches it was found out that “organochlorine, organophosphate, carbamate, and metal-based pesticides (such as those based on arsenic, copper, or mercury)” destruct immune system of mammals. Consequently, this destructing effect is caused on humans as well. There is a special term defining immune system that suffers from pesticides in food: ‘immune suppression’ (Gross 2010, p. 21). Researches and studies in this field are in the stage of a gradual development. There is a challenge of exact determination of harmful effect caused by pesticides on human immune system. In other words, no exact hazardous level for human health is defined. Thus, from a supported harmful effect caused by pesticides in food on human organism, the accents of a modern science are shifted to consideration about ‘hidden threat’ of pesticides in food exerted on human immune system. It can be supposed that dwellers of rural areas are at greater pesticide risk than those who live in urban areas. Developing countries require a stronger governmental regulation and support than developed countries (Janofsky, August 2006). Governments of developed countries and international organizations, such as the EU Commission considered above, have clearly realized an inevitable health hazard caused by pesticides in food in the beginning of XXI century. Conclusion Currently, this scientific field is being developed at a full speed. In spite of innovations introduced and EU regulations revised, there are still a lot of uncovered issues. For example, MRLs added by ARfD are two measurement points accepted by the EU Commission, are of primary concern for international society. In such a way, we can claim that international society applies new methodologies and approaches to make an analysis of pesticides in food. Works cited 1. ‘No Evidence' of Health Benefits from Organic Food; but Report Did Not Examine Levels of Contaminants like Pesticides. 2009. Western Mail (Cardiff, Wales), July 30, p. 8. 2. Castorina, Rosemary, Asa Bradman, Laura Fenster, Dana Boyd Barr, Roberto Bravo, Michelle G. Vedar, Martha E. Harnly, Thomas E. Mckone, Ellen A. Eisen, and Brenda Eskenazi, 2010. Comparison of Current-Use Pesticide and Other Toxicant Urinary Metabolite Levels among Pregnant Women in the CHAMACOS Cohort and NHANES.  Environmental Health Perspectives118:856+. 3. Greene, Stanley A. and Pohanish, Richard P. (editors), 2005. Sittig's Handbook of Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals. SciTech Publishing, Inc. 4. Gross, Alexandra, 2010. Beyond Organic: Hydroponic Growing Means Local, Pesticide-Free Food Year-Round.  E, July/August, pp. 18+. 5. Janofsky, M., August 2006. Unions say E.P.A. bends to political pressure. [online]. Available from: Read More