=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #333
—April 15, 1993—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF A MEDIA
CAMPAIGN TO CONVINCE US THAT POISONS ARE SAFE?
As chemical contamination of the natural environment continues to
spread,[1] and public concern continues to grow,[2] a major
effort has developed to try to convince the American people that
industrial poisons in our food and water are safe. Mainstream
scientific organizations like the American Association for the
Advancement of Science have been recruited and are on board. The
NEW YORK TIMES is on board. (See RHWN #330, #331, #332.) In an
editorial February 26, 1993, SCIENCE magazine said, “Synthetic
pesticides in marketed foods constitute no appreciable threat to
human health.” (They did not define “appreciable.”) SCIENCE went
on to say that strict enforcement of the Delaney clause (see RHWN #324, #326), to force removal of 70 suspected or known
carcinogens from the American food supply, would have
“negligible” benefits.[3] Recently the NEW YORK TIMES,
editorialized (in its news columns) that many unnamed “experts”
are asking whether the nation is “wasting billions of dollars
regulating substances that might pose little risk.” And: “Many
experts… question the wisdom of spending billions of dollars to
protect people from traces of toxic compounds.”
Such media campaigns do have an effect. People are worried about
intimate contact with industrial poisons for obvious reasons
(common sense says you should keep them out of your food, if you
can). Many people therefore find it reassuring to have
established and usually-reliable sources of information telling
them all is well, don’t worry. It is evident that people are
hungry for reassurance, even if it is not substantiated by any
facts. Dozens of newspapers have reprinted the TIMES’S recent
unsupported claims that low levels of chemicals harm no one.
(One reader called from California to tell us that the TIMES’S
series was handed out at a Regional Water Control Board meeting
about leaking underground tanks. “The government is now using
the NEW YORK TIMES to try to convince us we’re overreacting to
all instances of chemical contamination,” said Anna Marie
Stenberg.)
Propaganda campaigns like this one serve to reassure people that
industrial poisons are our friends, that it’s OK to let poisons
into our homes and have intimate contact with them. Such
campaigns clearly work. Unsuspecting Americans brought 189
million pounds of pesticides into their homes in 1988, and spread
them into and onto their closets, cabinets, floors and pets, then
eventually into and onto their rugs, carpets, furniture, linens,
towels, air, food, and children.
Until very recently, surprisingly little has been known about
actual patterns of use of pesticides in homes. A pioneering 1992
study of 238 Missouri families revealed eye-opening new
information about the way people use pesticides.[4] Of the 238
families studied, 98 percent used pesticides in home or garden at
least once a year and 64 percent (two-thirds) used pesticides
more than five times a year. Eighty percent of families used
pesticides inside their homes at least once a year. Fifty-seven
percent of families used herbicides to control weeds. Half of all
families used insecticides to control fleas and ticks on pets.
Flea collars were the most popular single pesticidal product
(half the families used them). Carbaryl and Sevin were also
popular, with 28.2 percent of families using them. Diazinon was
another favorite with 8.4 percent using it. No-pest strips
(dichlorvos) and Kwell shampoo (lindane) were used by 10 percent.
The study examined pesticide use in relation to the age of
children in the home. (The families were selected partly because
they had children under 10 years old, so these families are not
representative of the general public.)
During pregnancy, 46.6 percent of families used pesticides at
least once, and 34.0 percent used them more than 5 times. Use of
pesticides by the mother herself during pregnancy was more
limited: 28.9 percent of pregnant women used pesticides at least
once and 12.3 percent used pesticides more than 5 times. These
numbers represent a substantial decrease of pesticide use during
pregnancy, compared to other times; this probably reflects
awareness that humans are particularly sensitive to toxins before
birth.
When the home had a baby aged 6 months or less, pesticide use
dropped somewhat more, compared to the period of pregnancy. Only
10.2 percent of families used pesticides on the garden when the
baby was less than 6 months old (as opposed to 18.1 percent who
put pesticides on the garden while the mother was pregnant).
Likewise, yard use of herbicides dropped from 28.2 percent of
families during pregnancy to 23.7 percent of families after the
baby arrived. Authors of the study believe this reflects
parental awareness that infants are especially sensitive to
toxins.
Spray cans and spray liquids are the most popular forms of
pesticides. After the child reaches 7 months of age (or older),
50 percent of families apply pesticides by this method. Dusts,
“bombs,” and no-pest strips were used by 5 percent to 15 percent
of families.
Use of flea collars remained constant regardless of pregnancy or
age of the child. “This was in contrast to all other product
types that showed substantially less use during pregnancy and
birth to six months of age,” the study’s authors said. Evidently
most people do suspect the possibility of pesticidal effects on
their young children but they do not seem to recognize that flea
collars cover their pets with low levels of poison.
* * *
A 1993 study of brain cancer in Missouri children shows
statistically significant associations between childhood brain
cancer and several types of pesticide use in the home, including
no-pest strips, flea and tick collars on pets, and chemicals for
controlling nuisance pests (roaches, ants, spiders, mosquitoes),
termites, lice, garden and orchard pests, yard weeds and pet
pests (ticks and fleas).[5]
The case-control study examined 45 Missouri children with brain
cancer, plus two control groups (85 healthy friends of the
cancer-stricken children, and 108 children with other types of
cancers besides brain cancer).
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in children under 14
and brain tumors are the second most frequent type of cancer,
accounting for approximately 20 percent of all cancers in
children. The survival rate of children with brain cancer has
not improved in recent years (35 percent survive five years or
longer).[6]
According to data compiled by the National Cancer Institute,
during the past 15 years there has been a “dramatic rise” in
brain cancers among two age-groups in the U.S.: old people and
children. Brain cancer in children aged 0-4 is rising at a
steady 2.6 percent each year (thus doubling in incidence every 27
years, or doubling each generation).[7] Between 1973 and 1988,
brain cancer in children under 14 increased 47% (from 2.3 per
100,000 to 3.4 per 100,000).[8]
Families of the children with brain cancer seemed like ordinary
people. Fifteen percent had only a high school education; another
40 percent had high school plus additional training; 24 percent
had graduated from college. Thirty-eight percent had a family
income between $20,001 and $30,000; 16 percent had family incomes
between $30,001 and $40,000; 16 percent had family incomes above
$40,001.
In making the comparisons between the brain cancer cases and the
controls, researchers took into account the child’s exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke, family income, family members
working in construction trades (among adults, brain cancer is
associated with exposure to many industrial chemicals, especially
paint–see RHWN #266), father’s education and mother’s education,
among other things.
What chiefly distinguishes the “case” families from the “control”
families is that the “case” families used chemical pesticides in
their homes more often than did families whose children have not
developed brain tumors.
In all, the study found 15 separate statistically significant
associations between one type or another of pesticide use and
childhood brain cancer. Types of pesticide use are such things
as “use of no-pest strips for nuisance pests” and “Diazinon used
in the garden or orchard.”
This study has several limitations. The number of cases is
small; many associations were tested, so a few of the 15 positive
associations may be due to random chance. The study may suffer
from “recall bias” because the data were supplied by mothers
whose recall may have been been biased by their emotional
reaction to their child’s experience.
The authors say, “Although our findings are not conclusive, they
are suggestive of an association between childhood brain cancer
and several pesticide use situations, product types, and specific
products. The results of this study highlight the need for
expanded research on the health effects of pesticides.” And, it
seems to us, the need for some common-sense steps like PREVENTION.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
[3] Philip H. Abelson, “Pesticides and Food,” SCIENCE Vol. 259
(February 26, 1993), pg. 1235.
Descriptor terms: pesticides; journalism; propaganda; ny times;
science magazine; american assoctaion for the advancement of
science; mo; missouri; pesticide use patterns; insecticides;
herbicides; pets; flea collars; carbaryl; diazinon; dichlorvos;
kwell shampoo; lindane; brain cancer; childhood cancer; mortality
statistics; morbidity statistics; no pest strips.