10. Food Safety & Agricultural Chemicals as an Ethical Issue

1. 10. Food Safety & Agricultural Chemicalsas an Ethical Issue Larry D. Sanders AGEC 4990: Spring 2002 Dept. of Ag Economics Oklahoma State University

2. INTRODUCTION • Purpose: • to understand ethical issues related to the use of agricultural chemicals in food production/processing • Learning Objectives: 1. To become aware of the impact of agricultural impact on food safety. 2. To review current policy related to agricultural chemical use in food production. 3. To understand the ethical issues related to the use of agricultural chemicals in food production/processing.

3. Food Safety:Are producers the problem? • Some of the public is concerned about pesticide use/residue • While HACCP* hasn’t yet targeted producers, “traceback” could do so • Food Quality Protection Act imposes new responsibilities on chemical use *Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point

4. Food Safety Policy: Background Issues FOOD ??? • Risk Acceptability--Tolerance Options: • Zero Tolerance • De Minimus (Negligible) Risk (1/1 mil) • No Significant Risk (1/100,000) • Risk Benefit (Benefits > Costs) • Biotechnology • Information & Labelling • Irradiation • “Traceback” • Free Market

5. Is Our Food Supply Safe?Are Ag Chemicals a Health Hazard? • PRIVATE CHOICES & PUBLIC ISSUES: “Americans decide as a matter of public policy how much risk they are prepared to tolerate, but they do not do it in the same way at all times in all places & in all contexts. . . .” D. Kennedy, Former FDA Commissioner • EXAMPLES Saccharine Caffeine Alar & Apples Nuclear Power Tobacco Autos E.Coli/meat consumption Alcohol Cyanide/Grapes Water Sweets Red food dye/M&M’s

6. The Public Issue of Food Safety • “Determination of ‘safe’ food does not necessarily imply zero risk but rather a personal & societal judgment about the level of acceptable risk. The basic economic problem . . . is one of balance between acceptable risk . . . in terms of health consequences, & cost.” Sporleder & Kramer, ‘89 • Concerns trace back in history; resurface in 1960s (additives), & in 1980s (pesticides) • Issue has shifted from scientific debate to consumer, media & political debate

7. Cancer Risks of Common Substances & Risk of Life-threatening Harm w/Selected Activities (Ames, Wilson, Crouch) Source Risk PCB’s 1/15 million DDT/DDE 1/10 million Tap water 1/3.3 million Peanut Butter(2T) 1/115,000 Diet Cola 1/60,000 Background radiation 1/50,000 Raw mushroom(1/day) 1/35,000 Home accidents 1/9,000 Police work 1/4,500 Auto accident 1/4,200 Beer(12 oz/day) 1/1,200 Wine(8 oz/day) 1/750 cigarettes (pack/day) 1/300

8. Top Food Safety Hazards: Perception Vs. Reality • Consumer perception: 1990: pesticide residue in food 1997: both pesticides & food-borne diseases • SCIENTIFIC FACTS BASED ON ANALYSIS (ranked in order): 1. Food-borne diseases 2. Malnutrition 3. Environmental contaminants (lead/mercury) 4. Naturally occurring toxins 5. Pesticide residue 6. Deliberate food additives

9. Food Safety: Scientific Studies--results • Ames study: • 99.9% of carcinogens in diets result of natural toxins in plant • By weight, natural toxins about 10,000 times more concentrated in plants than synthetic chemicals • Pesticide residue-tested food: • 67% --no residue • 96% --residue in allowable limits • <1% --exceeds federal tolerance

10. Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 • Amends FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenti-cide Act) & FFDCA (Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act) • Includes uniform safety standard for residues in raw & processed foods • Generally prohibits states from setting standards that differ from federal standards • Facilitates registration for pesticides for specialty, minor crops • Improves consumer access to info • EPA will consider pesticide residue risk to infants/children • Provisions leading to lowering residue allowable levels

11. FQPA (continued) • May reduce risks, especially to children • Lack of substitutes shifts producers to narrow spectrum & time specific chemical alternatives, bio-engineered options & biologicals • high management & high cost • Regional impacts vary • shifts competitive advantage for some crops & production practices • Crop impacts vary • estimated losses of $90-$128 mil for Oklahoma crops • Implementation under review by Congress

12. Government Intervention Decision Based on Various Ethical Perspectives • Procedural Theory • Notion of consent requires either private independent agency or government objective agency • Libertarian Theory • Negative Rights justifies consumer protection to keep them free of bodily harm from industry • Egalitarian Theory • Positive Right of individual to safety

13. Government Intervention Decision Based on Various Ethical Perspectives (continued) • Utilitarian Theory • Market benefits of safe food are greater than the costs to provide it • Market and nonmarket benefits of safe food (& attendant cleaner environment) are greater than the costs • Intrinsic Rights • The protection of all species (human & non human animals & plants) is of primary importance

14. Rank what you consider to be the most serious food safety hazards (1=most serious) ____Deliberate food additives ____environmental contaminants (lead/mercury) ____foodborne diseases ____malnutrition ____naturally occurring toxins ____pesticide residue