| All the news that's fit to scare. That was the | | | | air, or consumer products is intolerable. The |
| thrust of this weekend's New York Times article | | | | reality, of course, is that everything, including |
| by Charles Duhigg entitled "Toxic Waters: | | | | natural foods, is comprised of chemicals -- most |
| Debating Just How Much Weed Killer Is Safe in | | | | of which are toxic and/or carcinogenic in animals |
| Your Water Glass." | | | | at high dose but are perfectly safe when we |
| As president of the American Council on Science | | | | consume them. |
| and Health, I have been following environmental | | | | How much "weed killer" in your water is safe? |
| and health media articles for some three decades | | | | Well, how much arsenic in your natural baked |
| -- seeing how they measure up in terms of | | | | potato is safe? (Arsenic occurs naturally in |
| "honors" for exaggerated risk, biased reporting, | | | | potatoes.) The mere ability to detect a chemical in |
| misrepresented science, and pure sensationalism. | | | | a substance -- in food, air, water, consumer |
| The Duhigg article is clearly a contender for the | | | | products, or even human tissue -- does not signal |
| all-time worst. | | | | that there is a public health hazard. |
| Duhigg argues that the widespread use of the | | | | Nowadays, when we have so many serious public |
| herbicide atrazine is polluting our supply of drinking | | | | health risks to face (cigarette smoking, obesity, |
| water and putting us all -- but particularly pregnant | | | | swine flu, and more), Duhigg has given top priority |
| women -- at risk. He consistently refers to | | | | to a bogus risk. And this is irresponsible. As a |
| "recent studies" (but does not cite them) and | | | | result of his article, he hopes that Americans will |
| concerned "scientists and health advocates " (but | | | | be demanding zero tolerance for atrazine in the |
| does not name any mainstream experts) who | | | | water supply -- and we will incur huge expenses |
| think that the Environmental Protection Agency is | | | | to accomplish this dubious goal, with absolutely no |
| not protecting us from atrazine -- and that the | | | | resulting health benefits, since there were never |
| manufacturers of the herbicide are somehow | | | | any health risks in the first place. Even the |
| poisoning us. He cites "new research" showing that | | | | Environmental Protection Agency (the most |
| atrazine is hazardous even at low levels but does | | | | stringent regulatory agency in the world and the |
| not specify his sources. He seems oblivious to the | | | | most powerful, not known for downplaying |
| work of the most famous early toxicologist | | | | chemical risks) stated that atrazine posed no |
| (Paracelsus, circa 1500) who set in place the | | | | known health risks when they approved |
| time-honored premise: only the dose makes the | | | | re-registration of it in 2006. EPA has evaluated |
| poison. | | | | hundreds of studies finding "no evidence of a link |
| Atrazine is a widely used herbicide -- applied on a | | | | to birth defects." |
| variety of crops (corn, sugar cane, sorghum, and | | | | So why did the New York Times give such |
| more). It is a tightly regulated chemical, and levels | | | | prominent coverage to a bogus risk? It is part of |
| in water (where there could be spill-off from | | | | a general wave of "chemophobia." Earlier this |
| agricultural or other applications) are closely | | | | month, the Times accepted a paid advertisement |
| monitored by environmental agencies. It has been | | | | (an "op-ad") on their editorial page, paid for (at a |
| in safe use for over fifty years. There is a huge | | | | price of about $50,000) by New York's prestigious |
| "safety factor" built in -- so that permitted trace | | | | Mount Sinai Hospital and Medical Center. The |
| levels are some hundred-fold less than what could | | | | paid-for editorial copy claimed that industrial |
| have an adverse effect on human health. The | | | | "chemicals" (phthalates, BPA, etc.) were imperiling |
| Safe Drinking Water Act requires monitoring | | | | our children, when there was no basis whatsoever |
| water for a multitude of chemicals, including | | | | for such an assertion. |
| atrazine. You would drown from drinking the huge | | | | So it is "in" to scare people about "chemicals" in |
| amounts of water needed for you to be affected | | | | their air, food, water, and consumer products -- |
| by trace levels of atrazine in any American water | | | | and apparently Mr. Duhigg and the Times elected |
| supply. | | | | to exploit this phobia. Unfortunately, scaring people |
| Duhigg appears to be playing to the fears | | | | about the quality and safety of their drinking |
| (phobias) of consumers who (a) do not know | | | | water is not only without scientific basis, it is |
| where their food comes from -- and are unaware | | | | completely counter-productive, distracting us from |
| that without the use of agricultural chemicals like | | | | the real public health hazards we face today. |
| atrazine (which allow farmers to fight weeds, | | | | Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the |
| insects and disease) our food supply would be | | | | American Council on Science and Health |
| diminished by about half -- and (b) think that even | | | | (ACSH.org). |
| a trace amount of any "chemical" in food, water, | | | | |