Quarterly Report to the Technology Assessment Board, January 1 - March 31, 1980 Page: 76
109 pages.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Air Force Times Jan. 28, 1980
Contaminants in Our Food
By GOODY L. SOLOMON
1 N PERHAPS the strongest report ever issued by the
I Office of Technological Assessment (OTA), the research
- arm of Congress has exposed environmental contaminants
in food as a "nationwide problem" that risks "health
hazards and economic harm."
These contaminants consist of chemicals, metals or
their derivatives and radioactive materials, OTAkex- v
plains, and, "unlike food additives, inadvertently find
their way into the human food supply (including sports
fish and game)." Examples are pesticides, mercury,
polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs), and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), to name a few. Some have been linked
to ills such as cancer, birth defects and nerve disorders
after low levels of exposure;
Moreover, as PCBs demonstrate, the pollution can
sometimes linger. Formerly used in.products such as
transformers, dyes and carbon paper, PCB production
was halted in 1977 but it "remains an ubiquitous low-level
contaminant in many foods, especially fresh-water fish,"observes OTA.
Its report cites PBBs in Michigan animal feeds, PCBs in
New York's Hudson River and kepone in the James River
of Virginia as "some of the more serious of the 243 food
contamination incidents identified in an OTA survey of the
50 states and 10 federal agencies. They have involved all
categories of food." Those 243 incidents, OTA clarifies, do
not represent the total number that have occurred.
"The ominous dimensions of the problem," the report
says, are pointed up by the latest major food contamination
accident, which was not included in the survey. That
one involved PCBs from a damaged transformer at a
packing plant in Billings, Mont. The PCBs got into animal
fats used to produce meat and bone meal that were sold to
feed manufacturers and farmers; Result: polluted poultry,
eggs, pork products and a variety of processed foods
were found in 17 states. Hundreds of thousands of pounds
with an estimated value in billions of dollars were seized
or destroyed.
Although OTA's revelations are enough to kill one'sappetite, Don Elkins of the National Food Processors
Association thinks environmental contamimation affects
only one percent of the food supply. "That's a lot of food,"
he admits, "but the problem is not as exaggerated as
some people believe."
A few environmentalists also offer mild reassurances.
One said, "Consumers can-be exposed to some things at
low levels without suffering much damage."
Nevertheless, OTA expresses-concern because "the true
extent of the problem is still unknown." In the future, it
fears, "New substances developed to meet new needs or to
replace known toxic substances may create unexpected
environmental problems if not properly controlled. Byproducts
of new technologies such as synthetic fuels are
alsopotential environmental contaminants." Most immediately,
in OTA's assessment, "organic'chemicals
probably pose the greatest potential environmental and
food contamination problems ... (because of their) number,
volume and toxicity."
The current unknowns are many indeed, according to
OTA. Much information is missing about all the pollutants,
their identities and threats to specific foods; the nature
and extent of each comtaminant's effect on human health
and the economy; the costs of learning all that and then
instituting regulations; and comparisons between the
costs and benefits.
To help fill the knowledge gap, OTA reports, technology
is now available for creating a national monitoring system
of the environment in general as well as foods. Since the
system would be extremely costly and requires some
additional research and development, a pilot-project is
recommended.
Environmentalists support that idea. Blake Early of the
Sierra Club said, "Generating the capacity to identify
contaminants ... is the most serious issue. I want to
prevent contamination to begin with. Once it gets intoL
food, it's the end of the chain."
OTA, which customarily gives Congress a number of'
options including maintenance of the status quo, alsosuggests
strengthening the power of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to regulate contaminants in food
more speedily and effectively. The report criticizes some
of FDA's procedures (also other regulatory activity at the
national and state levels), which tend to discover hazards
tman ItaSanford Miller, director of FDA's Bureau of Foods,
faults some of OTA's findings and conclusions. "The
issue," he said. "is simply that there are a large number
of substances in our environment whose ultimate toxicity
will be difficult to judge. We will never be able to determine
and control all of them. We don't have that much
money or people."
Miller also contends that his Bureau is doing a pretty
good job with the resources it has. "The second largest
program, in dollars, in the Bureau is chemical contamination.
It's almost one-third of our budget," he said. "The
largest is biological contamination." Furthermore, he
added, the Bureau asked Congress~for more money to
research and regulate chemical contaminants but ...
"Congress is very shortsighted."
Obviously, this debate will go into the hopper along with
similar ones about how much public money to spend on
health protection.
In the meanwhile; what's a diner to do? Don't get hung
up on one particular food such as burgers or tuna sandwiches
for lunch everyday, advised a number of experts.
If you eat a wide variety of food, chances are you'll get
smatterings of contamination instead of "being zapped
with any one thing," to use Miller's words.
In addition, some of the latest nutrition advice applies
here as well. Cut down on animal fats. since they tend to
accumulate higher concentrations of contaminants than
fruits and vegetables, recommended Joe Highland of the
Environmental Defense Fund. He also cautioned against
organ meats.
Similar articles also appeared in:
Consumer Focus
Long Beach Independent_ - - 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Office of Technology Assessment. Quarterly Report to the Technology Assessment Board, January 1 - March 31, 1980, text, June 10, 1980; Washington, D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc9233/m1/79/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.