|
| |
You stated in a recent post that fipronil is not considered a carcinogen.
Yet, I find on the EPA website a document dated 1997 that says: "Cancer risk.
Fipronil has been classified as a Group C - Possible Human Carcinogen, based on
increases in thyroid follicular cell tumors in both sexes of the rat, which were
statistically significant by both pair-wise and trend analyzes." So it appears
that the US EPA classifies fipronli as a "Possible Human Carcinogen". I wonder
how many products we are using that could "possibly" cause cancer.
Jeff, KS
*Answer:*
I would say that 100% of the chemical products we use could "possibly" cause
cancer or tumors, based on the ability to apply a high enough dose of that
substance to test animals. This will be a topic that I unapologetically accept
the right to express my opinion on, but an opinion based on several decades of
exposure to the topic of pesticides and human health. Let's start by saying that
some years back Velsicol Chemical Company (manufactured chlordane) did a health
survey of several thousand people in professional pest management. Their results
indicated that those who are most exposed to pesticides had longer life
expectancies and lower incidence of cancer than the average person in the
general public. Hmmmmm..... but that should not be if all these pesticides are
so terribly carcinogenic.
In the 1970's a chemist and toxicologist at Univ. Calif. Berkeley created a
test, now referred to as the Ames Test, for determining whether or not a
substance (ANY substance) had the potential to cause cancer. At the beginning,
as I heard the story, Dr. Bruce Ames was not exactly a friend of pesticides, and
was setting out to prove their hazard with his test, which was done with the use
of bacteria that would mutate slightly in the presence of some chemicals. The
roundabout conclusion, then, was that if a chemical could mutate that bacteria
it "might" also be able to mutate human cells, which "might" then grow in an
unusual fashion and "might" form a tumor, which "might" become cancerous. A lot
of the commonly used insecticides tested by him were then labeled as Potential
Carcinogens.
Then, Dr. Ames continued testing more chemicals, including all those
chemicals found naturally in fruits and vegetables, chemicals created by cooking
or heating foods, chemicals in beer, wine, etc. The more he tested the
more he realized that if you expose an organism to a high level of virtually ANY
chemical you can cause this kind of cell damage, which could potentially lead to
out-of-control growth of the cells during the healing process. His position then
became fairly PRO-pesticide as he claimed that Mother Nature produces thousands
of times more carcinogens than man-made products pose. And, to reach the levels
of exposure that can cause these kinds of effects in laboratory animals requires
doses far, far in excess of any normal exposure you or the public could reach in
normal daily uses. That test on laboratory animals that led to the loss of Alar
a few years back was the equivalent of feeding a child 12,000 apples every day
just to get that much Alar in him.
If we decide to eliminate our exposure to all potential cancer-causing
materials we need to stop drinking any alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, and
distilled spirits are on the California Prop 65 list of "known or suspected"
carcinogens), stop eating all fruits and vegetables (they are absolutely PACKED
with natural insecticides), stop drinking coffee or any other caffeine drink,
stop lying on the beach (sand and the silica dust are carcinogens), stop walking
in the sunshine (UV - a known carcinogen), and.....well, you get the
picture. A more realistic approach is to accept that pesticides have been
tested more heavily than most other kinds of chemicals, and if they truly did
cause cancer a manufacturer would not market them. We are given the Label and
the proper use instructions, and if we take the simple step of using the product
correctly we manage any risk at well below a level that could be hazardous to
people or pets.
We also weigh the benefit against the risk, and the use of pesticides
selectively and correctly provides huge benefits to our health, homes, and
abundance of food. When I called the American Cancer Society a few years back to
ask about cancer rates, the response from them was that cancer incidence, in the
U.S., was DECLINING, with the exceptions of skin cancer (more outdoor
activities) and lung cancer (too many young people still taking up smoking).
Cancer is more likely to occur in people as they age, and even with our life
spans getting longer and longer we find that cancer is becoming less of a
threat. Again, this should not be if the soup of chemicals we swim in is so
horribly dangerous to us.
Bottom line - use chemicals when they are needed, but not unless they are
needed. Use them according to instructions and good common sense, minimize human
contact with them, and enjoy the incredible benefits we are given with their
use. Thanks Jeff - good question.
Mr. Pest Control
Thanks.
|
