A key preventative measure to reduce the risk of cancer is to consume at least five servings of fruit and vegetables per day. What irked Bruce Ames was that, with the higher prices, lower access, and increased fear of risks from consuming fruit and vegetables, more than two-thirds of the adult US population did not meet this standard and were at a higher risk of cancer due to the pro-organic food fear campaigns. [However,] the zealots paid to promote this dogma were not concerned about facts or improving public health. In focusing on minute risks, they ignored the significant consequences that followed from their interventions.
What is disappointing is that groups like Pesticide Action Network have trained toxicologists on staff, like Peter Clausing, who know how low the risks are, and rather than inform his impassioned activist colleagues on Bruce Ames’ “cup of coffee” equation, he chooses to lie and promote the fear fiction. Peter knows the emotional game his organization is playing and plays into it.
The key point is that all risks are relative and we are constantly weighing exposures and benefits in our daily activities. There is no zero-risk or risk-free situation.
- Should I hold a handrail as I descend stairs (and risk exposure to potential bacteria on that risk prevention support)?
- Should I take antibiotics to give my immune system a boost (and risk compromising my gut flora)?
- Should I wrap the fresh meat I bought in plastic (and risk some chemical migration)?
Some serious risks are barely considered because of the benefits (Botox, stairs, weight-loss pills… and coffee) while other insignificant risks fill us with fear and dread (GMOs, pesticides, artificial sweeteners…). The more afraid I am of something (and the less I see the benefits), the more challenging it is to conduct a rational evaluation of relative risk exposures.
Risk managers measure the level of exposure to toxins, at what dose, and under what conditions (faithful to Paracelsus: the “dose makes the poison”). Environmental health activists, on the other hand, look for the presence of a hazard (any dose will do) and rely on the pondering that we just cannot be certain that any exposure is safe. And since “certain” is an emotional ideal, and in reality, there is nothing that is risk-free (safe), then taking precautions on what we fear or don’t like becomes a campaign policy reflex (unless it is something you enjoy or cannot get funding for – like a campaign to ban coffee).
We need a means for people to measure risks against other mundane or banal activities. When people understand how the risk from pesticide residues in a year’s fruit and vegetable consumption is equivalent to drinking a cup of coffee, they can look at the issue of sustainable farming and food security from a more rational perspective. When people know how many cans of diet soda they need to drink every day to put themselves at risk, controlling their weight gain and living healthier lives become easier.
During the 1999 Belgian dioxin crisis, when most food was taken off of the shelves and the local population resorted to eating fish caught in the heavily-polluted canals, trust in the food chain had evaporated. The Belgian government had the sorry idea that they could restore trust by testing all of the food. As dioxin traces can come from exposure to any smoke fumes, it was not surprising that most of the food was testing positive. After years of fear campaigns, the public believed dioxins were the deadliest chemical known (“…to guinea pigs”), nobody asked how much dioxin was too much. A toxicologist at that time had told me that, to get the toxic equivalence of inhaling one drag of a cigarette, I would have to eat at least 20 highly dioxin-laden chickens a day. Belgians smoking a pack a day had sworn off of poultry.
Communicating on exposure levels needs to be put into a context that people can understand. Developing a toxic equivalence scale to put the real risks into perspective would do a considerable amount to reassure people and put the activist fear campaigns into perspective.
This already does exist in the form of the “No Observed Adverse Effects Level (NOAEL)” but the numbers are often communicated in brute form [to] a numerically illiterate population. It needs to be put in clear language that the layman can understand (no ppbs or nanometers). For example, if we are told our children are at risk from trace pesticide residues found in my breakfast cereal (another mindless Environmental Working Group fear campaign), someone needs to communicate clearly how I would need to eat around 300 boxes of cereal (… a day!) to come near exceeding any “No Observed Adverse Effects Level”.
The focus should not be on how dangerous our food system has become, but rather, on how deceptive and manipulative the petty fear-mongers in the activist community, funded by obvious interest groups in the organic food lobby and US tort law firms, have become. That story is not often reported.
- Still, the media is reporting on unknown risks from plastic residue exposures, detected at the nano level, even if they would not even register on such a toxic equivalence scale.
- Still, new organizations promote the activist/organic food lobby link between pesticides and cancer.
- Still, our news feeds are spreading doubts [about] additives that keep our food safe.
Some activists pose as journalists to advance their campaigns more efficiently while [being] paid by NGOs. I [David Zaruk] will leave these scoundrels to find their own ways to cope with their lack of integrity. NGOs tend to offer credible journalists pre-written articles for them to copy-paste. Other writers, usually relentlessly befriended by activists and NGO campaigners, don’t have easy access to clear, science-based information. Sometimes it’s their editors who push them to follow the more lucrative fear line.
There are serious challenges to having the public gain access to credible information without alarmism, politics, and special interest agenda.
Where possible, we will draw on already existing material, illustrations, and examples that put these unfounded fears into context. We invite support from the scientific community to add their input across a broad spectrum of false fears and activist manipulation.
Importantly, the Chemical Contextualizer will become part of the Firebreak’s Media Center: an information source to support journalists and individuals struggling to find facts amid the fears and fictions of the special interest campaigns.
David Zaruk is the Firebreak editor and also writes under the pen name The Risk-Monger. David is a retired professor, environmental-health risk analyst, science communicator, promoter of evidence-based policy, and philosophical theorist on activists and the media. Find David on X @Zaruk
A version of this article was originally posted at The Firebreak and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article. Find Firebreak on X @the_firebreak
