are added the finely divided particles of whatever insecticide the probably uns us pecting
s uburba nite has chos en to dis tribute, rais ing the level of air pollution above his own grounds to
s omething few cities could equal. Yet little is said about the hazards of the fad of gardening by
pois ons, or of ins ecticides us ed in the home; warnings on labels are printed s o incons picuous ly
in small type that few take the trouble to read or follow them. An industrial firm recently
unde rtook to find out jus t how fe w. Its s urvey i ndicated that fewe r than fifteen pe ople out of a
hundre d of thos e us ing ins ecticide aeros ols and s prays are even aware of the warnings on the
containers.
The mores of s uburbia now dictate that cra bgras s mus t go at whatever cos t. Sacks containing
chemicals designed to rid the lawn of s uch des pised vegetation have become almos t a s tatus
symbol. These weed-killing chemicals are sold under brand names that neve r s ugges t their
identity or nature. To learn that they contain chlorda ne or dieldrin one mus t read exceedingly
fine print placed on the leas t cons picuous part of the s ack. The des criptive literature that may
be picked up in any hardware or garden-supply store seldom if ever reveals the true hazard
involved in handling or applying the material. Instead, the typical illustration portrays a happy
family scene, father and son smilingly preparing to apply the chemical to the lawn, small
children tumbling ove r the gras s with a dog....
The ques tion of chemical res idues on the f ood we eat is a hotly debate d is s ue. The exis tence of
s uch res idues is either played down by the indus try as unimportant or is flatly denied.
Simultane ous ly, there is a s trong tendency to bra nd as fanatics or cultists all who are so
perve rs e as to demand that their food be free of ins ect pois ons. In all this cloud of co nt rove rs y,
what are the actual facts? It has been medically es tablis hed that, as common s ens e would tell
us , pers ons who lived and died before the dawn of the DDT era (about 1942) contained no trace
of DDT or any similar material in their tissues. As mentione d in Chapter 3, s amples of body fat
collected from the general population between 1954 and 1956 averaged from 5.3 to 7.4 pa rts
per million of DDT. There is some evidence that the average level has risen since then to a
cons is tently higher figure, and individuals with occupational or other special exposures to
insecticides of course store even more. Among the gene ral population with no known gros s
expos ures to ins ecticides it may be ass umed that much of the DDT s tored in fat depos its has
entere d the body in food. To test this assumption, a scientific team from the United States
Public Health Service sampled restaurant and institutional meals. Every meal sampled
contained DDT. From this the inves tigators concluded reas onably enough, that ‘fe w if any foods
can be relied upon to be entirely free of DDT.’ The quantities in s uch meals may be enormous.
In a separate Public Health Service study, analysis of prison meals dis clos ed s uch items as
s tewed dried fruit containing 69.6 parts per million and bread containing 100.9 parts per million
of DDT! In the diet of the average home, meats and any products derive d from ani mal fats
contain the heavies t res idues of chlorinated hydrocarbons. This is becaus e thes e chemicals are
s oluble in fat. Residues on fruits and vegetables tend to be somewhat less. These are little
affected by was hing—the only reme dy is to remove and dis card all outs ide leaves of s uch
vegetables as lettuce or cabbage, to peel fruit and to us e no s kins or outer cove ring whatever.
Cooking does not destro y res idues.
Milk is one of the few foods in which no pes ticide residues are permitted by Food and Drug
Administration regulations. In actual fact, however, res idues turn up whe neve r a check is made.
They are heavies t in butter and other ma nufactured dairy products. A check of 461 samples of
backadmin
(backadmin)
#1