EXTENSION EXPERTS OPPOSE PESTICIDE CUTS; `BENEFITS OF FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FAR OUTWEIGH ANY RISK,' SAYS FOOD SPECIALIST

The health risks from pesticide residue on fresh produce are minimal, and a government proposal to cut the use of farm chemicals will mean higher prices and lower quality produce on grocers' shelves, county extension experts say.

A National Academy of Sciences report released last week found that infants and children are more sensitive to pesticides than are adults. In response, the Environmental Protection Agency joined with the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration in calling for a reduction in the use of pesticides on fruit and vegetables.

The EPA regulates pesticide levels by balancing agricultural benefits with health risks.

But Susan Mills, food and nutrition specialist with the University of Missouri Extension, said the study doesn't point out any new risk. The study looks at the government's method of evaluating health risks from pesticide use.

The 386-page document questions the prevailing method of calculating pesticide risk based on a single number representing average exposure of an entire population. That method doesn't take into account the fact that infants and children eat fewer foods, consuming much more of certain foods per unit of body weight, the report states.

But Mills said pesticide residue can be removed from fresh produce by simply rinsing fruits and vegetables with tap water.

"The bottom line," she said, "is that a trend, particularly in children, is diets lacking in fresh fruits and vegetables and milk. Parents then see this type of study and may think they need to cut back on what is fresh."

But she said, "The benefits of fresh fruits and vegetables far outweigh any risks.

"Pesticide residue is so minimal on fresh produce," Mills said. "With produce like apples, grapes, pears, plums, broccoli, all you need to do is give them a good rinse under tap water and towel dry them. That pesticide will dissipate."

Although the government has long established tolerance levels for pesticide residues on food, the Clinton administration's response Friday marked the first time the government has said farmers should cut the use of chemicals.

Gerald Bryan, an agronomist with the University of Missouri Extension, said restricting chemical use will mean higher prices and lower quality on grocery shelves.

"The American public is used to seeing nice, disease-free, high quality fruits and vegetables on grocery shelves," Bryan said.

"When you go to a significant reduction of chemicals, fruits and vegetables will have much lower visual quality and will have more diseases."

Bryan said grocers have offered organic products. "But people pass them by. They don't want to buy an apple with a worm hole or a scar," he said. "Those products are also usually higher priced.

"We have been producing more on less acres all the time," he said. But that increased productivity is due in large part to chemicals pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers."

As part of his duties with the extension service, Bryan trains farmers in proper usage of chemicals.

"I think there is a perception that the farmer is out there putting down a tremendous amount of chemicals," Bryan said. "It's not economically possible to do that. The farmer is a trained person in how to use and apply chemicals properly."

Bryan said chemical manufacturers also have worked toward making products safer.

"Instead of putting on gallons per acres," he said, "farmers are putting on one-tenth of an ounce. We used to test for parts per million. Now we look for parts per billion."

Farmers are steering away from pre-treating in expectation of a problem. Instead, they are waiting to treat a problem when it occurs, he said.

They also have moved from soil treatment to applying the chemicals directly to the weeds or insects.

"A study like this has a lot of maybe's that may or may not be true," he said. "But the perceptions that are developed are hard to overcome."

He cited the Alar scare a couple years ago that devastated the Washington apple-growing industry.

"A lot of hard evidence never erases that perception," Bryan said.

(Some information was provided by The Associated Press.)