Could pesticides give farmers cancer? — or do they kill only weeds and bugs?

A farmer sprays potatoes in PEI. Shaun Best/Reuters photo

Ok this is not raw milk, but it is about agriculture and health. Seems the Cancer Society has finally awakened to the realization that agricultural use of pesticides could somehow be implicated in rising rates of cancer among farmers and farm workers, to say nothing of those of us who eat the food. What took them so long? Needless to say, even broaching the subject opens a big nasty can of worms with the agribusiness establishment. Martin Mittelstaedt reports on the story in Wednesday’s Globe and Mail. And now, as of 8:00 am Thursday, there are already 128 comments. Clearly this topic touches a nerve. Here’s a sampling:

“For years, the Canadian Cancer Society has argued in favour of bans on the cosmetic use of pesticides around homes and gardens. But it has remained silent on the country’s biggest use of bug and weed killers: on farms.

Now, the society is considering weighing in on whether these sprays pose a cancer risk to farmers, other rural residents near them, and to the wider public from eating foods carrying pesticide residues.

To that end, the society is holding a conference starting today at which it has assembled experts to advise it on whether cosmetic-pesticide restrictions, which now exist in Ontario, Quebec and many municipalities, should be followed by tougher action against the use of the sprays in agriculture. The society doesn’t have a view on the related issue of whether organically grown foods are a better option, a topic that will also be discussed.

“We’re bringing the world’s leading scientists together to help us understand the science and what we know and don’t know and where we could take action, if it’s warranted,” said Heather Logan, the society’s director of cancer-control policy.

In deliberating on possible cancer risks of pesticides, the society is wading into one of the most vociferously contested fields of science and regulation. Health Canada and the pesticide industry say that products licensed for use are extensively tested, and present no risk to farmers or consumers.

“In terms of any risk, health risk, Health Canada will only approve pesticides that do not pose a health risk, provided that the label directions are followed,” said Connie Moase, a director in the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada’s watchdog.

But pesticide opponents, including some respected public-health groups, argue that pesticides are strong poisons designed to kill if used as directed. They contend that Health Canada and industry play down research linking occupational exposures to bug and weed sprays to greater risks of many cancers, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Those worried about pesticides also say the cancer society policy is contradictory because it deems use on residential lawns and gardens as dangerous and needing to be banned, while ignoring the far greater use on farms. One estimate, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2005, found that about five times more 2,4-D, the main weed killer subject to cosmetic-pesticide bans, was used on farms as on lawns.

“It’s very hard to argue that the cosmetic use of pesticides poses a public-health risk, including cancer risk, and not examine what is going on in the rural and agricultural communities,” said James Brophy, an adjunct professor at the University of Windsor.

Prof. Brophy has published research indicating that women who worked on farms in Southwestern Ontario have about three times the breast-cancer risk of those without an agricultural background.

For the cancer society, lending its credibility to campaigns to eliminate cosmetic pesticide use was easy.

The bans were needed because “there is some potential for increased cancer” with the use of these products around homes and “no health benefit whatsoever,” Ms. Logan said. “The only benefit that you get is looking at your lawn without any weeds. The issue of non-cosmetic exposure is very different.”

The cancer society, in its monitoring of recent scientific literature, considers some cancers to be linked to pesticides. The connection is strongest for those, such as farmers, who have occupational exposures. “There does appear to be a potential of an increased risk of a number of cancers” from them, Ms. Logan said. The diseases include colorectal, prostate, lung, ovarian and some types of blood cancers.

The cancer risks for rural residents near farms and for those eating trace pesticide residues on food are less clear-cut, according to Ms. Logan.

The society says developing a view on agricultural pesticides is complex because it involves a risk-benefit analysis. Pesticides on farms have an economic benefit, helping to provide low-cost food. The society has been promoting diets rich in fruits and vegetables, and is worried that pesticide restriction might reduce the availability of these foods or increase their cost.

If foods are “so unaffordable that people who have lower incomes can’t afford to eat a healthy diet, that has the potential to increase their risk long-term of a whole host of chronic diseases,” Ms. Logan said.

Most of the research linking cancer and pesticides are epidemiological studies, where the health of people who use a lot of weed-killing and bug-killing sprays, like farmers, is compared with those who don’t. Many of these studies, but not all, find associations between pesticides and cancer, leading some scientists to argue that minimizing the use of the chemicals is a sensible precaution.

But epidemiology has a drawback: Regulators view it much like circumstantial evidence in court. It is able to suggest associations between a pesticide and an illness, but doesn’t provide proof the chemical caused the disease. On the other hand, these types of studies were the first to show the link between smoking and lung cancer….”

Read the whole story here

And here are a few excerpts from the comments:

“Donald Wilson from Canada writes: It is well past the time to be at least restricting the use and amounts used of 2 4 D , and the many other lethal pesticides and fungacides used in great quantities by the farmers . Some farms already monitor the fields and spray only the portion of the crop field that is infested with a pest(s) – others do not . This is done to cut the cost of the chemical and the cost of application . The tractor operator sitting in an air conditioned cab is as bad off as the one sitting on an open seated tractor – the cab air fans draw in the particles supended in the air of the field . Some of this drifts to the neighbours . It is well known among lay persons that some people can’t eat tree fruits that have been sprayed – if they do the throat closes off in an allergic reaction . Others can’t eat sprayed vegetables – Listen to your body . Poor crop rotation leads to the incresed use of pesticides and fungacides . Just look at the Potato field problems in most of PEI – potatoes that have rotted spots throughout the tuber . and others so spotted on the outside they are fed to the beef cattle , and then we eat that meat . I wonder what is passed along to humans from these unsaleable potatoes ? We already know that antibiodics fed to animals are passed along to humans in the meat eaten . Cancers have not one cause , but many factors combine to cause cell growth to go of of control . Chemicals that we breath , eat , and drink all combine to change cell growth . This we humans already know.

Misery No one from Toronto, Canada writes: About dam time. This is such a political foot ball, the farmers versus getting elected. It’s always the same politics getting in the way of good health. Each with their own agenda.

I knew a farmer in his earlier years, when he was spraying he had this habit of when the jets plugged up he would unscrew them and blow them out with his mouth then spit the residue out.

In his later years he developed these awful tumors out of his head and neck. He died a horrible death.

Was there a connection ? You tell me.

Old guy

see see writer from Canada writes: I was in Prince Edward Island for a late summer holiday, and noticed that all the beautiful rolling potato fields were covered with blackened, dead plants. I asked the local people about it, and was told that the potato companies spray the fields with defoliant to kill the plants in order to facilitate the harvest. It seems that it is quite possible to harvest potatoes from living plants, but it is more efficient to kill them. So, not out of necessity, but just for efficiency, the land is sprayed with what is essentially Agent Orange, and the neighbors must breathe the air downwind and drink from the polluted watersheds, and the workers must be doubly exposed to it, and we unthinkingly buy and eat the potatoes which were attached to the mother plants when they were killed. And yes, it does affect the potatoes — because it changes the texture of their skin, I was told. How many other poisonous agricultural practices are not really neccessary?

Tony Mareschealle from Oakville, Canada writes: Just another excuse to “offshore” our farming industry. Then all we will be doing is importing fruit vegetables and everything else from China, India, Africa and any other “offshor” country where it is “cheaper” to grow it. Of course these ountries have “stringent” pesticide rules and the risk to us will be much lower.

Del- Monte demonstrated that when the decided to stop using ontario fruit and closed their canning plant to go to China, the rest will follow.

chicken grambo from Canada writes: see see writer wrote: the potato companies spray the fields with defoliant to kill the plants in order to facilitate the harvest.

This is true and the practice should be stopped!

Write to your MP. Eat organic potatoes. Make a statement!

Essentially, weed spray works by shutting down the root’s ability to take up water and/or to overgrow
(growth hormone). Because this chemical targets the root area perhaps it is best not used on root (tuber) crops. But it is used and for what…convenience! Cost savings cause companies and growers to push the boundries on what ‘needs’ to be sprayed on our food! That is why stricter regulations are required!
What happened here?

Jorly fuster from Canada writes: Money is far more important that people’s health. Yes, many will die of Cancer from pesticide use, but many more will live and purchase produce therfore making companies like Monsanto lots of money.

It’s simply a matter of economics and numbers. Run for the cure if you like, but more government money is going to bio-tech companies than cancer research.

Kman Willi from Canada writes: As a Manitoba farm kid, I remember changing the nozzles on the end of the sprayer with bare hands. Dad purchased “Glean” – a herbicide, and we were able to spray the entire farm with a one litre jug mixed into 1000 gallon sprayer.

Call me stupid, but that $hit has caused numerous cancerous and neurological disorders in farmers, who in the 1970-early 1990’s were spraying fields without cabs on their tractors. Someone has to pay for allowing my family, and my community to be poisoned. Urban people who want to complain about the increased cost of produce if farming products are organic – shame on you!!!

A.J. Maynard from Canada writes: Kman Willi: good post!
It is easy for those who do not think they are not being exposed to this stuff to have a cavalier attitude toward it. They are not realizing however how much exposure they really have everytime they ingest certain foods.

For those of you who put down Rachael Carson, I suggest you re-read her book. She predicted the rates of breast cancers increasing to what they are today as well as a few other unpalatable truths. Remember ddt? That almost wiped out entire species of birds by stopping the shells on the eggs from forming properly. It was denied for years that ddt caused a problem and the same tired old arguements were given that I am reading on these posts.

Have any of you visited a cancer centre lately? They are one of the largest growing parts of any hospital. If you think it will be expensive to change our practices think of how expensive these treatment units are.

Canuck with Questions from Canada writes: 100,000 Indian farmers suicided doing business with Monsanto! Google it.

Anne Peterson from Canada writes: Actually organically farmed land is more productive. Someone should count the cases of cancer in Alberta and of neurological problems in children there. How years overdue!! The Cancer Society has stressed cure and paid little attention to cause other than cigarettes for far too long. I believe they get some of their money from chemical companies….”