Food Safety
From microbial contaminants to pesticides, and from organics to obesity, few issues are as important to consumers as the safety and quality of their food. But government regulation can compromise food safety, affordability, and choice if it focuses on a fear-driven activist agenda rather than basic principles of science and genuine safety. Too often, the government’s regulatory agenda favors politically expedient outcomes over those that would actually promote safety and availability. For example, the U.S. government maintains outmoded “poke and sniff” food inspectors whose methods are incapable of detecting or preventing foodborne illness while it also maintains regulatory barriers against new food safety technologies, such as irradiation, that could cut the incidence of foodborne illness by half or more. And regulators control the content of food labels so stringently that sellers are often forbidden from informing consumers of many beneficial product attributes. Food safety and labeling regulations should be designed with maximum flexibility to allow producers to use the production methods and labeling information that best meets their customers’ demands.
Is it True That Organic Foods Are Safer to Eat or Better for the Environment?
No. There has been a substantial amount of research comparing the nutritional value of organic and conventionally-produced foods, and it shows that content of vitamins and nutrients in the two is essentially the same. In addition, while organic farmers do not use synthetic pesticides, they do use a variety of chemicals to control insects and plant diseases – including such potentially dangerous substances as copper sulfate, rotenone, pyrethrum, ryania, and sabadilla. These “organic” pesticides are derived from minerals or plants, are lightly processed, and thus are considered to be “natural” for the purposes of organic agriculture. Yet, ounce for ounce, most are at least as toxic or carcinogenic as many of the newest synthetic chemical pesticides. Copper sulfate, for example, is toxic to humans and is designated a hazardous substance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Pyrethrum has been classified as a “likely human carcinogen” by an EPA scientific panel. With only a few exceptions, these organic pesticides control insects and plant diseases far less effectively than synthetic chemicals, so they must be used in much larger doses.
Claims that organic farming is better for the environment are also difficult to substantiate because organic practices merely trade some environmental threats for others. For example, because organic farmers must control weeds by using frequent, mechanical tillage organic agriculture contributes to topsoil erosion and disturbs soil health. Compared with modern conservation tillage practices, organic weed control is much more environmentally damaging. And, organic farmers rely on animal manure and so-called “green manures,” such as legume nitrogen fixation or organic plant matter, to restore soil nutrients. However, this leads to nitrate leaching into groundwater and streams at rates similar to conventional agricultural practices, and the chemical properties of synthetic and organic fertilizers are identical.
Perhaps the most important problem with organic farming is low yields. Proponents acknowledge that organic farming generates yields as much as 30 to 40 percent lower for certain types of crops. Yet, even that can be misleading, because organic farming requires land to be fallowed about a third of the time, whereas conventional farming does not need to fallow land. Thus, organic farms typically must use 50 percent more land than conventional farming.
Why Shouldn’t Consumers be Worried about Pesticide Residues on Food?
Pesticide residues found on domestic and imported produce pose little, if any, risk to public health, particularly compared with the enormous public health benefits of pesticide use. Pesticide residues rarely, if ever, approach unsafe levels. Even when activists cry wolf because residues exceed federal limits that does not mean the products are not safe. In fact, residues can be hundreds of times above regulatory levels and still be safe. According to one National Research Council report, “the great majority of individual naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals in the diet appear to be present at levels below which any significant adverse biological effect is likely, and so low that they are unlikely to pose any appreciable cancer risk.” The American Academy of Pediatrics notes: “The risks of pesticides in the diet are remote, long-term and theoretical, and there is no cause for immediate concern by parents. The risks to children over their lifetime of experiencing the major chronic diseases associated with the typical American diet far exceed the theoretical risks associated with pesticide residues.” Various government agencies test produce for residues to ensure they meet safety standards. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the state of California conduct the most comprehensive and regular testing. Both find that residue levels are not only far lower than any EPA standard, they are most often undetectable.
What is Irradiation, and How Can it Help Prevent Foodborne Illness?
Food irradiation is the process of exposing packaged foods, such as raw meat, to very low doses of ionizing radiation in order to destroy bacteria, viruses, or insects that might be present in the food. It also tends to extend the shelf-life of many food items because spoilage is primarily caused by bacteria. Such irradiation can kill more than 99 percent of any bacteria and viruses present, which would substantially reduce the likelihood of foodborne illness. The process neither turns irradiated foods radioactive nor leaves any radioactive residue, though it does have a very minor effect on nutrient levels by slightly reducing the amount of some vitamins, in much the same way as vitamins are destroyed during cooking. Irradiation has been endorsed by countless scientific bodies as a low-cost but effective food safety preventive measure, but its use has been limited in the U.S. due to burdensome and often inconsistent regulation, and by vocal opposition from environmental and consumer activists.
Although a variety of different irradiated food products appear in U.S. grocery stores—including some fresh tropical fruits, ground beef, and most dried herbs and spices—federal regulations require such products to be labeled with the “radura” symbol for radiation and the word “irradiated,” leading some consumers to believe the products might be radioactive, and providing an easy target for anti-irradiation protesters. Supporters of food irradiation have asked federal regulators for permission to identify the process as “cold pasteurization” or “electronic pasteurization,” because it provides an effect similar to heat pasteurization of milk. Yet, while regulators have seriously considered such a change, the proposals have been met with fierce opposition from radical anti-irradiation activists.