Crop input providers are worried about fallout from a damning report that points the finger at agricultural pesticides as a main contributor to elevated cancer levels.
“It is certainly cause for concern,” said Peter MacLeod, vice-president of chemistry with CropLife Canada.
But he argues the report is rife with overstated analysis, unbalanced recommendations and unproven theories.
Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now is a report submitted last week to U.S. president Barack Obama by the President’s Cancer Panel. It provides a scathing indictment of conventional agriculture.
Read Also
Europe holds promise for Canadian lentils
Pulse Canada is trying to help boost lentil consumption in Europe, which is already the fourth largest market.
The report says pesticides approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contain 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic. The solvents, fillers and other inert chemicals listed on pesticide labels are also toxic, although they are not tested to see if they cause cancer.
The EPA has approved nearly 1,400 pesticides. Some contain chemicals classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as known, probable or possible human carcinogens.
The study also links the use of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers and a number of different types of cancer.
Farmers, farm workers and their families have disproportionate exposure to those pesticides and fertilizers and that is a major concern for the report’s authors.
While an ongoing Agricultural Health Study involving more than 89,000 participants shows no increase in overall cancer rates among farmers, there are elevated risks of prostate cancer for male farmers and melanoma for female farmers.
But the authors’ warnings extend beyond the agricultural workforce. One recommendation in the report warned consumers to exercise caution when eating food grown in conventional agriculture systems.
“Exposure to pesticides can be decreased by choosing, to the extent possible, food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers and washing conventionally grown product to remove residues.”
MacLeod participated in a pesticide panel during the information gathering phase of the report and expressed shock by the interpretation of that session.
“Certainly what I heard that day didn’t come close to some of the claims they were making in the report,” he said.
MacLeod said an appendix at the back shows no strong link between pesticides and cancer but rather a suspected link.
He also questioned the objectivity of a report that mentions the heightened risk for farmers of two types of cancer in the AHS study, but failed to note the decreased risk of 35 other types of cancer in the same study.
Laura Telford, executive director of Canadian Organic Growers, embraced the findings of the report and hopes it leads to a more precautionary approach for pesticide approval in the U.S. and Canada.
She doesn’t expect it will result in a huge surge in organic food demand but it may get people to think more about what they’re ingesting.
“Whenever there is more reports that make people fear the food system, it does gradually add up to changes in behaviour,” she said.
There is no direct endorsement of organic agriculture, but the authors encourage consumption of food that is free of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, advise consumers to eat free-range meat raised without antibiotics and growth hormones and encourage farmers to use cover crops instead of nitrogen fertilizer.
“They don’t want to recommend a particular production system but they are very clearly describing things that organic farmers have been doing for years,” said Telford.
Meanwhile, the Canadian Fertilizer Institute said it is unaware of any scientific information that warrants the mention of fertilizer in the report.
“All major fertilizer products have been proven safe after rigorous human health and ecological toxicity testing,” said the group in an e-mail responding to the report.
The American Cancer Society called the report “unbalanced,” especially in its key finding that pollution induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.
But Telford said she hopes the cancer panel report receives the same treatment as a study released last year by the British Food Standards Agency, which said there was no nutritional difference between organic and conventional foods.
That study received more media coverage than any organic food study she has ever seen due to the fact that the group behind it was a neutral, mainstream, science organization.
She hopes the President’s Cancer Panel has the same clout with media outlets.
“I would think this is as mainstream as organizations get, so I think people are going to listen,” said Telford.
