Pesticides
bottled in drinking water
Prompted
by professional responsibility, Dr AS Aiyar presents a different perspective
on the issue of pesticides in bottled drinking water, one that is contrarian
to what the people have been made to believe
The
Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) recently announced its findings
on the unsafe levels of pesticide residues present in various brands
of bottled drinking water sold in the country. The shocking data revealed
the high content of five different pesticides in these samples, being
many times more than what has been specified by the European Union (EU),
as the maximum permissible level for these contaminants. The likely
harmful effects due to their chronic ingestion, especially neurotoxicity
and carcinogenicity, were also highlighted. The public-spirited television
exposé had its desired effect in arousing the people’s ire, with the
information being disseminated in various languages by the print media
too.
Salvage
effort
The
Minister for Science and Technology personally wrote to the Prime Minister,
indicating that his department largely concurred with the findings.
The episode was also the subject matter of political debate, being raised
in both the Houses of Parliament. The Minister for Food and Consumer
Affairs was quick to respond by announcing that prompt punitive action
would be taken against the offenders.
A
meeting of experts, drawn from the Government, industry, WHO and consumer
organizations, convened by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), however
attested to the adequacy of the national specifications for the product
to ensure its safety for human consumption. Although this was a vindication
of the BIS and the Ministry of Health, it would have been politically
incorrect in the charged atmosphere to give it any credence and was
promptly ignored. Toeing the line of the Ministry, BIS also initiated
lightning action by conducting raids through its regional offices and
revoking the licences issued to a few units.
Contradictions
and confusion
Some
dissonance crept into the issue with the Minister for Health claiming
that the bottled drinking water available in the market conformed to
the country’s legal requirements and, therefore, no action could be
taken against the manufacturers on the grounds of their violating safety
norms. The limits on pesticide residues adopted by us, were more lenient
than those of the EU, which had been used by the CSE, as the benchmark
for judging safety. Belatedly, the BIS also explained that the much-publicised
action taken by them against some of the bottlers were unrelated to
the issue of pesticide levels, but to various procedural matters connected
with licensing.
A
critique of the drama
At
the end of it all, the entire sequence of events that took place during
the first three weeks of February 2003 is reminiscent of a comic opera
– a misguided attempt to raise an alarm on a non-issue and an abject
failure on the part of the Government in risk communication. The thinking
person cannot be impressed by these incriminations, finger-pointing,
contradictions and complete turnabouts, but would seek answer to the
following questions:
- Could
the CSE which undertook the study, not have discreetly shared its
findings and discussed them with other competent scientists, advocacy
groups, the industry and the concerned Government departments prior
to publicising it? Or, would it have seriously blunted their stand?
-
Was the attention-grabbing potential of prime television presentation
necessary to convey an important message? Or, was it needed for the
organisation?
- Why
did not the organisation put the risk of ingesting pesticide residues
in bottled water in the total context? Why was there no comparison
of the risk in relation to consumption of drinking water from public
sources or of various common foods? Or, would they have realised that
they are missing the wood for the trees?
- As
a socially responsible organisation, were the consequences of publicising
their findings on consumers, industry and the Government taken into
consideration? Or, was social responsibility not their real concern?
No
quick-fix solution
A
large data bank, on the amount of pesticide residues present in different
categories of foods, has been compiled by studies carried out in a large
number of academic and research establishments, during the last four
to five decades. There is a general recognition that the extent of contamination
of our foods by various pesticides is significantly higher than what
is accepted as safe in the developed world. This arises from two major
factors: the continued dependence on the environmentally persistent
organochlorine pesticides (primarily DDT and lindane), long after their
use had been prohibited in most other countries; and the inadequate
efforts at educating the farmer in the proper use of pesticides and
a total lack of regulatory control of pesticide application.
Risk
analysis basics
Do
we need to use pesticides at all and then worry about the unintended
deleterious effects due to their presence in the environment?
Pesticides
come under the category of ‘economic poisons’, a general term used to
describe chemical agents. There is a general consensus that the benefits
to the farmers, arising from the use of pesticides, in protecting his
crop and to society as a whole in ensuring an adequate supply of food,
are greater than the risk to the consumer. It would, however, be necessary
to have in place safeguards that ensure that the manufacture and use
of pesticides do not lead to unacceptable risks. In determining the
maximum tolerable limits of pesticides in foods, it is necessary to
make a meaningful integration of many different kinds of information.
a)
Acute and chronic toxicological data in suitable animal models, including
effects that may become apparent only long after exposure, or those
that may be manifested in subsequent generations,
b)
The normal per capita consumption of different categories of foods,
taking into consideration regional and local preferences;
c)
Pesticides that are normally used, based on availability, preference
and regulations, for specific agricultural crops, in different locations;
d)
The vulnerability of certain sections of the population; and
e)
The environmental persistence of the pesticide.
Technological
and economic considerations also impinge on this decision-making and
among the essential pre-requisites to the ‘acceptability’ of a standard
are ‘achievability’, ‘affordability’ and ‘actionability’. With so many
variables influencing decision, it is not surprising that most countries
have opted to set their own standards – an optimised solution that assures
a degree of safety that they desire.
.....CONTD
TO
READ FURTHER... SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR
COPY TODAY!!!
