The Buzz About Pesticides: Stay Tuned

Have you read the news lately? The subject of pesticides seems to be a very hot topic. One-hour TV news magazines, radio programs, newspapers, magazines, and yes, even the Internet regularly carry stories about the use of pesticides in and around our homes, as well as in agriculture.

It also appears many outside organizations are attempting to research the industry: We’ve received an unprecendented number of phone calls in recent weeks from groups or individuals wanting information about the pest control market.

Perhaps part of the reason for all the buzz about pesticides has to do with the EPA’s recent initiatives to implement the Food Quality Protection Act, which is good — we all need to stay abreast of what occurs in that arena. But, as has happened in the past, some of the recent stories don’t do an effective job of informing the public the issues regarding pesticides and their use. And it’s likely no surprise to you that many times these stories are doing more harm than good.

One recent piece that has angered PCOs, toxicologists and regulatory officials alike is an article that appeared July 12, on the front page of the business section of the Orange County edition of The Los Angeles Times. The article was titled “Growing Debate: Under a sweeping new food safety law, the government may soon outlaw what some farmers say are their best weapons against insects.” The story, by Times staff writer Martha Groves, discussed how the California farming community is in an uproar because the EPA is considering curtailing some uses of organophosphate pesticides. The story goes on to define, incorrectly at times, what organophosphates are, how they are used, growers’ views on the topic, and what the environmentalists are saying. In the story, Groves also offered the prediction that “if the pesticides are banned or sharply restricted, growers will figure out other ways to protect crops.” Unfortunately, the reporter neglected to include what these other “ways” might be.

Even more unfortunate were Groves’ uses of untrue, irresponsible and grossly misleading analogies that have a distinctly alarmist tone. For one, the article falsely states that chlorpyrifos is used to fumigate buildings. Furthermore, the reporter attempts to fabricate a connection between the uses of pesticides on crops and the “recent rash of food-borne illness outbreaks.”

Thankfully, professionals in this industry did not allow this disservice to go unnoticed. Lon Records of Target Specialty Products, Santa Fe Springs, Calif., was among the first to submit a letter alerting The Times of its consequential errors. Letters were also sent by Dr. Robert Krieger, extension toxicologist with the University of California-Riverside; and by Leon Spaugy, agricultural commissioner for the County of Los Angeles. The professionals pointed out several mistakes made in the story, including that inferences that food-borne illnesses are somehow related to the use of OPs are inaccurate and irresponsible. Records wrote: “improper hygiene, shipping, storage and preparation foster salmonella outbreaks that are responsible for the vast majority of ‘food-borne illness.’” As of press time, these letters sent to the editor of the Orange County Times had not been printed.

It’s unfortunate that such poorly researched stories make it into print. Such accounts serve only to alarm consumers; they don’t provide them with the information they need, and they ignore sound science. Which is why it’s so important that this industry stays tuned in to what our media outlets are saying. It has been, and still is, our job to keep consumers informed, and to continue to alert the media when it fails.