Pesticides, risk, and applesauce.
Pesticides, risk, and applesauce.
复制标题
农药、风险和苹果酱。
DOI：
10.1126/science.2727679
复制
发表时间：
1989
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Gold,LS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ames,BN;Gold,LS
小丹尼尔·E·科什兰 (Daniel E. Koshland, Jr.) 的社论“本周恐慌”（4 月 7 日，第 9 页）谴责公众对苹果中的阿拉尔和智利葡萄中的氰化物“反应过度”。虽然考虑到最近媒体对食品安全的关注，这是可以理解的，但科什兰的态度本身似乎是对太多坏消息的情绪过度反应。他对自然资源保护委员会（NRDC）的“射击信使”攻击既误解了公共利益团体发出此类警报的原因，也误解了公众做出回应的原因。这篇社论包含重要的事实错误，可能会增加公众对阿拉尔问题的困惑。科什兰不加批判地将美国食品和药物管理局 (FDA) 和美国农业部关于阿拉尔问题的范围和严重性的两项说法视为“事实”。这两个机构都更加努力地平息公众的恐惧，而不是告知公众阿拉尔可能带来的风险。他们估计“只有 5% 的苹果经过了 Alar 处理”，这与最近对苹果进行的几项 Alar 残留调查发现 22% 至 55% 的苹果经过了 Alar 处理的结果截然相反。这些数据来自多种来源，包括 FDA、纽约州和加利福尼亚州机构、《洛杉矶时报》、《消费者报告》杂志以及一家私人测试公司 (Nutri Clean)。最大的样本（FDA 1988 年残留检测）在 38% 的测试苹果中发现了阿拉尔 (1)。即使假设苹果总收成的 60% 被送往加工商（并且可能未经过 Alar 处理），残留数据也无法与“5%”的数字相符。目前市场上超过 5% 的苹果都经过了处理。Koshland 在断言 Alar 残留物“远低于保守的环境保护局 [EPA] 容许范围”方面犯了一个更严重的错误。现有的容差（百万分之二十）绝非“保守”。它早于 EPA 表示的测试结果，表明 Alar 的分解产物 UDMH 是一种致癌物质。 EPA 最近估计，目前饮食中接触 UDMH 的癌症风险为百万分之 45，比他们自己定义的“社会可接受的”风险水平（百万分之一）高 45 倍 (2)。根据与该估计相关的残留物，苹果加工产品中阿拉尔的含量与百万分之一的风险一致，约为 0.01 ppm，是当前容差的 1/2000。 EPA 计划禁止 Alar，并打算将目前的容忍度保留在
Daniel E. Koshland, Jr.'s editorial" Scare of the week"(7 Apr., p. 9) decries public" overreaction" to Alar in apples and cyanide in Chilean grapes. While it is understandable in light of recent media attention to food safety, Koshland's posture seems itself an emotional overreaction to too much bad news. His" shoot the messenger" attack on the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) misconstrues both the reasons public interest groups sound such alarms and the public's reasons for responding as it does. And the editorial contains important errors of fact that may add to public confusion on the Alar issue. Koshland uncritically accepts as" facts" two claims by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture about the extent and seriousness of the Alar problem. Both agencies have tried harder to calm public fears than to inform the public about the risks Alar may pose. Their estimate that" only 5% of apples are treated with Alar" issharply contradicted by several recent surveys of apples for Alar residues that found from 22 to 55% treated. The data come from sources as diverse as the FDA and New York and California state agencies, the Los Angeles Times, Consumer Reports magazine, and a private testing company (Nutri Clean). The largest sample (FDA's 1988 residue testing) found Alar in 38% of testedapples (1). Even assuming that 60% of the total apple harvest goes to processors (and is presumably not treated with Alar), the residue data cannot be recon-ciled with the" 5%" figure. Far more than 5% of apples now on the market have been treated.Koshland makes a much more serious error in asserting that Alar residues are" well below conservative Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] tolerances." The existing tolerance (20 parts per million) is anything but" conservative." It predates test results the EPA says suggest that a breakdown product of Alar, UDMH, is a carcinogen. The EPA recently estimated the cancer risk ofcurrent dietary exposure to UDMH at 45 in a million, or 45 times greater than their own definition ofa" socially acceptable" risk level of 1 per million (2). On the basis ofthe residues associated with that estimate, the level of Alar in processed apple products consistent with a risk of 1 per million is roughly 0.01 ppm, 1/2000 of the current tolerance. The EPA plans to ban Alar and intends to leave the current tolerance in