Precautionary Pesticide Politics

Another interesting post from one of my favourite blog sites, Freakonomics at the New York Times:


http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com

This entry discusses the politics of pesticides.  The issue of pesticides is a happy hunting ground for the precautionary principle.  Think DDT, 2-4-5T, Tordon and any number of other chemicals used in agriculture, and how the precautionary was not applied, which lead to environmental damage, or where the PP was applied and the chemical was withdrawn from use.

The blog discusses the Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF) in California which received a grant to "correct misconceptions that some produce items contain excessive amounts of pesticide residues".  Two organisations, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) protested the AFF getting any money, saying the grant supported conventional agribusiness.

The AFF were trying to put the science forward in pesticide use that exposure to residuals is not the same as exposure to toxins.  Yes, there are traces of pesticide, but not in any significant amount, and certainly not enough to cause health problems.  The opposition EWG regularly publishes a dirty dozen of produce that is contaminated, with the aim of lowering pesticide consumption by avoiding comsumption (You can lower it by 4/5 by avoiding the dirty dozen!)

Here we see our happy little principle at work.  It makes sense that if you take the precaution of not eating contaminated foods, you should be healthier.  But typically, the PP skews the overall result.  The AFF contends that by publicising the dirty dozen, the EWG frightens people off eating fruit and vegetables, and so damages health much more directly by a poor diet.  So, do you want to take a very slight risk that you may develop "cancer" and "brain and nervous system toxicity" from the pesticides; or do you want to run the very real risk of a poor diet on your overall health?

The partner in crime with the EWG, the Organic Consumers Association, have an obvious interest in arguing with the AFF.  Organic produce is nominally twice as expensive as normal produce, but has doubtful claims to better nutrition.  Organic produce also is chock full of pesticides - but of the natural kind.  Are these natural pesticides any better or worse than the man made ones?  Are they any more toxic to us?

So we have uncertainties, political agendas, bad science and spin doctoring all fermenting away in the minds of people wondering whether blueberries and spinach are good for you.  Take a tip - the spinach is never any good.



Web reference
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/pesticide-politics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+FreakonomicsBlog+(Freakonomics+Blog)