CHEMICALS "Food Colors, A Scientific Status Summary," by the Institute of Food Technologists' Experts Panel on Food Safety and Nutrition and the Committee on Public Information, 1980, $1.00 from: Institute of Food Technologists 221 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60601 As an acknowledged devotee of label reading my ambivalence toward the presence of artificial additives in my food has been a longstanding one. Memories of the debate over FD&C red dye #2 (raised in the early '70s) and its purported carcinogenic properties only served to increase my suspicion. Recognizing the need for more public education on the issue of food additives, the authors of this 8-page report cover a good bit of history and many of the questions surrounding food colors. 1 Beginning their report with a rather condescending passage about the "world of color we live in," the authors argue the need for continued use of food dyes for cosmetic reasons. Mindful of the national goal of moving the U.S. diet toward "higher nutrient density" food while reducing caloric intake (i.e., less junk food and more of the basics), these scientists believe that food appeal is of critical importance: "Legislation to ban food additives would create a dilemma for this aspect of our national nutrition program." At the very least I think their analysis to be shortsighted, but the background they provide is intriguing. Until the 18th century, food coloring was done through "natural" means-spices and condiments. By the industrial revolution, our increased chemical know-how enabled food manufacturers to exploit the value of . food colors for profit and brought the issue of health and safety to the foreground. An 1820 expose of the industry claimed, among other examples, that "pickles often owed their appet_izing green color to copper sulfate, a poison which killed unknown numbers of consumers...." and "Gloucester cheese's orange color was frequently enhanced by the addition of poisonous red lead." In the years that followed, refinement in the coloring process and regulating legislation came to pass, limiting the number of approved dyes, while specifying manufacturing practices and purity. By 1938 the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) made certification mandatory in the U.S., changed the common names of dyes to numbers, and specified testing procedures to determine the safety of food additives. • The remainder of the report discusses the use of natural pigments-an interesting option these scientists seem predisposed against-and the question of safety from both the FD&C standpoint as well as their own. It is the authors' belief that the minimal health risks involved in artificial colors are worth the gamble, as "food which is not eaten has no nutritional value." After all is said and done, the question of safety is not really the major issue. The percentage of food coloring that we actually in-· gest each day is minimal but its implications are far greater. Artificial food colors are a symptom of a media-induced lifestyle that is heavily chemical and capital dependent rather than adding to the "quality of life," as the authors imply. The only group that benefits from the desire for rainbow-hued candy and unblemished, brilliant-orange oranges are the corporations that "produce" them. "Food Colors" offers insight into a more conventional view of artificial additives and the arguments used to support them. The evidence they provide without doubt ended my ambivalence on the subject. -LS Circle ofPoison: Pesticides and People in a Hungry World, by David Weir and Mark Schapiro, 1981, $3.95, from: Institute for Food and Development Policy 2588 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Continuing the ground-breaking work of their controversial November 1979 article in Mother Jones ("The Corporate Crime of the Century"), Weir and Schapiro have delineated the circular path of pesticide dumping in Third World countries that disables American workers in chemical plants and returns to us on the food that we import. "At least 25% of the U.S. pesticide exports are products that are banned, heavily restricted, or have never been registered for use here." That percentage is likely to increase as the world-wide market for pesticides increases exponentially. The World Health Organization figures estimate a pesticide-related. death happens every minute in the Third World. Yet the problem is not so much toxic chemical exports, but the massive overuse of pesticides-encouraged by the multinational corporations who produce them, the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (F.A.O.) and May 1981 RAIN Page 15 international research institutes such as the International Rice Research Institute. Justified as a means of solving the problem of hunger in developing nations, the benefits of increased production rarely find their way to the poor. Instead, the increased production is for luxury crops, grown for export on land owned by the elite, while the poor bear the health risks involved. _ "Few Third World countries have either adequate regulations or the capacity to enforce them. As a result, multin.ationals have a free hand." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.), authorized to screen imports for toxic chemicals as well as approve chemical production and use in this country, finds itself hamstrung in controlling multinationals and regulating pesticide use (see "Toxic Wastes Syndrome," RAIN January 1981). The regulating agencies of many Third World countries (often consisting of one or two people) are entirely unable to manage the situation. Pe~ticide poisoning in developing countries is much more common not only because of the harsh working conditions but because of the hazards of distributing toxic chemicals to people who are unfamiliar with their dangers, often cannot read, and receive inadequate information or protections. "Gramoxone, which contains the deadly weed killer paraquat, is not only sold in bottles-it's the same color as coke .. . small shops in Indonesia sell p~sticides alongside the potatoes, rice and other foods. II The "chemical time bomb" of pesticide dumping on Third World countries is beginning to have its effect on foreign relations. The publicity surrounding such inajor chemical incidents as the Malathion poisoning of hundreds of Pakistanis in 1976 has caused embarrassment, to say the least. As Third World people (most notably Noel Brown, a Jamaican and the North American representative for the United Nations Environment Program) raise their voices against the use of developing countries for pesticide dumping, the industrialized nations are beginning to respond. Efforts to standardize the global trade in toxic wastes and compile data on toxic chemicals and their harmful effects is being initiated through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) based in Paris. Like the remainder of IFDP's publications, the intent of Circle of Poison is not to merely shock but to mobilize individuals and communities toward action. Thenumerous examples of pesticide poisoning and immoral corporate decisions cited in this publication emphasize once again the need to redistribute the concentration of power to allow people to take an active part in decisions that affect their lives-both at home and abroad. Suggestions on where to _write letters and how to get involved conclude this noteworthy book, along with several appendices on pesticide imports in particular countries, pesticide manufacturers, and seed company acquisitions made by these same corporations. -LS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz