Consumers demand residue-free food

People have had enough of pesticide contamination says Sue Dibb of the National Consumer Council (NCC), and it is time regulators took it seriously. New approaches to risk assessment are a step in the right direction.

Consumer concerns
Consumer expectations for their food are very clear – safe, wholesome, quality foods that are affordable(1). Many consumers also want food that has been produced with due regard for the environment and to high animal welfare standards. Consumers are increasingly interested in agricultural production methods and how their food is produced. 
    Given the high profile problems over food safety and animal health that we have witnessed in recent years – from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), food poisoning, foot and mouth to concerns about genetically modified (GM) foods – it is not surprising that consumers say they have concerns about the food that they eat. While the extent of such concerns may wax and wane depending on newspaper headlines, concerns about pesticides and chemicals in food remain markedly consistent. Consumers are concerned about the harmful effects of pesticides on human health and the environment and would prefer retailers to stock foods that have been produced with minimum or no pesticides at all. 
    These concerns are not new. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring(2) published in 1962 was the first popular expression of a growing concern about the indiscriminate use of pesticides in general and DDT in particular. In 1990 the British Medical Association(3) concluded: ‘Given the extensive use of pesticides, both for agricultural and non-agricultural purposes, it is almost impossible for any member of the population to avoid exposure to very low levels of different pesticides in food and water’. Consequently, there is public concern about the possible adverse effects on human health arising from long-term exposure.’ 
    The debate on the health implications of agricultural chemicals continues and is surrounded with uncertainties. Such uncertainties include the lack of reliable data on the long-term consequences of exposure to pesticide residues – a situation that the World Health Organisation(4) has described as ‘particularly worrying’. 
    Recent NCC research(5) found that 71% of the people say they have given either a lot or a little thought to pesticides and other chemicals in food – more than concerns over BSE (69%) and GM foods (60%). These concerns are not limited to higher income consumers. Last year the NCC conducted in-depth workshops with low income consumers to explore the views of ordinary people towards the future of farming and food(6). Participants cared deeply about the food they ate and how it was produced. Despite being on low incomes their concerns ranged far beyond merely ensuring affordable food was available to them. Many workshop participants expressed their concerns about chemical sprays and pesticides used on crops and their desire to buy organic food, although it is generally outside their price range. The comment of a participant in the north-east workshop illustrates these views:
    ‘Our concern was the spraying of foods – we don’t know what exactly they put into the food that we are eating, with all the chemicals. We discussed organic foods … and we think it’s better for you and for your kids, but why is it dearer?’
    Sixty-two per cent of people in a survey for the Food Standards Agency (FSA)(7) say the use of pesticides has affected their eating habits. An important difference between higher income consumers and lower income consumers is that the former are more able to reduce their perceived risks through their purchasing behaviour – such as buying organic. This choice is not open to most lower income consumers.

Risk perceptions
About one-third of the food – and about half of all fruit and vegetables tested by the government contains detectable levels of pesticide residues, sometimes with multiple chemicals. The majority of residue levels are within maximum residue levels (MRLs), however 1-2% of food tested is found to have levels that are in excess of MRLs. Exceeding the MRL can indicate inappropriate use of pesticides but is not regarded as a safety level. The Acute Reference Dose (ArfD) is the safety level for a single exposure and the Acceptable Daily Intake is the safety levels for exposure over the lifetime. These are sometimes exceeded. For example, latest figures from government tests found chlorpropham in potatoes at four times the Acute Reference Dose for adults and 21 times for toddlers. Safety levels were also exceeded in pears(8). 
    Consumer’s perceptions of risk are affected by a number of factors(9). A key factor that typically heightens risk perceptions is an individual’s lack of control or choice in a ‘risk’ situation. For pesticide residues, consumers buying conventionally produced food cannot tell whether it contains residues. Thus, unless they buy organic they typically cannot choose to avoid residues. 
    Risk perceptions are also heightened by scientific uncertainties. For pesticides uncertainties exist over the safety of chemicals used, including for example, endocrine disrupters and ‘cocktail’ effects of multiple residues. Another salient factor is that whatever the risk, infants and children are likely to be more at risk, again heightening risk perceptions. ‘Good’ risk governance – that is the processes by which risks are assessed, managed and communicated – now recognises the importance of acknowledging and understanding public risk perceptions. 

Consumer aspirations 
The NCC welcomes initiatives that seek to address consumers’ aspirations for residue-free food. A number of retailers have been examining their policies on pesticide residues. Two supermarkets, the Co-op and Marks and Spencer have gone further than others in banning the use of certain pesticides by their suppliers and restricting others. They have also agreed to publish on their websites the results of their own tests for pesticides in the food they sell.
    European Union (EU) legislation now requires that manufactured baby food does not contain residues, although parents making their own baby food do not have the same protection. 
    The FSA has also, to some extent, recognised consumers’ aspirations. In June this year, the FSA made a commitment towards producing an action plan towards residue-free food. The FSA says it will work with other government Departments towards residues in food being ‘not detectable’. On the other hand the withdrawal of the Chief Medical Officer’s advice to peel fruit and vegetables for young children on the advice of the FSA has caused controversy. 
    The NCC has called on the agricultural industry to be more responsive to consumers’ needs and for the farming and food chain sectors to be in line with the EU and UK government’s strategy for sustainable development. We have called for reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy and for initiatives that encourage the development of more extensive production systems – including organic. 
    We welcomed the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food(10). Their report included the recommendation that farming systems – including organic – that reduce or avoid the need for pesticides should be a high priority for public research and technology transfer funding. We are currently awaiting the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affair’s (DEFRA) response to the Policy Commission and the publication of its agricultural strategy for England.
    However the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP), has already described the FSA’s aspirations for residue-free food as ‘scientifically meaningless’ and has called the objective ‘a disservice to consumers to encourage expenditure on resources, and consequent rise in food prices in pursuit of an unachievable target that goes far beyond what is necessary to protect human health(11)’. The Policy Commission recommended that the ACP should widen both its remit and representation to allow a broader, more inclusive and open approach. But until – or if – this occurs, the ACP’s strong words do not augur well for a coherent government approach to meeting consumer aspirations. 

Comparative risk assessment 
The NCC welcomes discussions on the role that Comparative risk assessment (CRA) could make towards minimising the impacts of pesticides. Broadening the risk assessment framework would, we believe, better meet consumers’ expectation and ensure that only the safest products and methods are available on the market. We recognise that there are challenges in determining how CRA should work in practice. However we believe this should not be a barrier towards the development of a more precautionary and sustainable approach to pesticide regulation.

References
1. National Consumer Council, The Future of Food and Farming, submission to the Farming and Food Policy Commission, 2001.
2. Carson R., The Silent Spring, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962.
3. British Medical Association, Pesticides, Chemicals and Health, Edward Arnold, 1990.
4. World Health Organisation, Public health impact of pesticides used in agriculture. Geneva; WHO, 1990.
5. National Consumer Council, Running Risks, summary of NCC research into consumers’ views on risk, 2002.
6. National Consumer Council, Feeding into Food Policy, a submission to the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food on the views of low-income consumers, 2001.
7. Food Standards Agency, Attitudes to Food Standards, 2002.
8. Friends of the Earth, Pesticides in Food: Latest Results, Press Release, 12 November 2002.
9. National Consumer Council, Running Risks: Summary of NCC research into consumers’ views on risk, 2002.
10. Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future, Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, 2002.
11. Stopes C., Presentation to Food Standards Agency Workshop: Consumer Choice: organically and conventionally produced food, 6 November 2002.

Edited presentation to the Pesticide Challenge conference, November 2003, Sue Dibb, National Consumer Council, s.dibb@ncc.org.uk 

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 58, December 2002, pages 8-9]