HOW A PUBLIC HEALTH STORY BECOMES AN INDUSTRY LEGEND

If the name Alar means anything to you, it probably means something related to
apples and Meryl Streep and hysterical environmentalists.

Those mental associations have been nurtured in us by industry-funded public
relations groups, who repeat over and over the claim that the "Alar scare" was
deliberate hype, which alarmed the public unnecessarily and caused irreparable
harm to apple growers.  They have made Alar the poster child of maligned
chemicals.

The media have accepted this legend without question.  The New York Times,
October 26, 1996: "Alar -- a scare that turned out to be overblown."  The San
Jose Mercury News, November 14, 1996: "In 1989 the Alar scare cost apple
growers an estimated $100 million."  The Richmond, Virginia, Times-Dispatch,
March 31, 1996: "the bogus Alar scare of 1989."  An article by Elliot Negin in
Columbia Journalism Review cites 160 references to Alar in 80 different
articles published in 1995.  "All but a handful present the Alar affair as
much
ado about nothing."

Here's what really happened.

In 1968 (before there was an EPA) the U.S. Department of Agriculture gave the
Uniroyal corporation a license to sell Alar, which is a growth hormone.  It
holds apples longer on the tree, so growers have more picking time before the
fruit drops, and the apples have more time to develop red color.  These are
economic and cosmetic benefits.  We had plenty of apples before there was
Alar,
and we have them now, though Alar is no longer used.

In 1973, five years after Alar was licensed, an article in the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute reported that a breakdown product of Alar called
UMDH
causes cancer in mice.  This was disturbing news, because Alar degrades into
UMDH in the human stomach and when it is heated -- for example, in processing
applesauce or apple juice.  More studies in 1977, 1978 and 1979 showed UMDH to
be a potent carcinogen in mice, rats, and hamsters.

By law the EPA should have banned Alar at that point, because cancer-causing
agents were not permitted in processed food.  But the government dragged its
feet.  It took five more years to begin proceedings to ban Alar, which by then
was used on 38 percent of the apples grown in the U.S.  In 1986, with the EPA
still dithering, the National Food Processors Association announced that Alar
or UMDH had been found in 73 samples of applesauce and 132 samples of apple
juice.  Gerber even found Alar in its baby food.

The EPA finally decided not to ban Alar, but to cut by 50 percent the amount
that could legally be contained in apples.  That was the recommendation of an
eight-member EPA scientific committee, seven of whom were paid consultants to
the chemical industry.

Others came to their own conclusions.  Gerber, Heinz, and Beech Nut stopped
using Alar-treated apples in baby foods.  Safeway, Kroger, Grand Union, and
Giant grocery chains said they would not stock apples treated with Alar.  The
American Academy of Pediatrics urged an Alar ban.  Maine and Massachusetts
restricted Alar use.  All this happened three years before the "scare."

By 1987 citizens' groups, states, and pediatricians were suing the EPA to
enforce the law and ban Alar.  In that same year the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) began the study that would lead to Meryl Streep and "60
Minutes."

The NRDC released its findings two years later in a press conference and a
book.  It said that children receive higher exposures to chemicals in foods
than adults do, because kids eat more fruits and vegetables -- especially
apples, applesauce, and apple juice.  Also, children are more sensitive to
many
toxins than are adults.  The NRDC study discussed not just Alar, but 23
chemicals, mostly pesticides.  The point was: the regulatory process is not
protecting us sufficiently, especially not our kids.

Knowing the kind of firepower industry would bring to this issue, the NRDC
hired a public relations firm to be sure its message was heard.  The PR firm
and the natural dramatizing instincts of the media did the rest.  The
producers
of "60 Minutes," knowing the mythic power of the tainted apple, from Adam and
Eve to Snow White, broadcast an image of an apple marked with a skull and
crossbones.  A Time cover showed an apple with a prohibiting bar through it.
Meryl Streep became a spokesperson for pure food.  School boards pulled apples
out of lunchrooms and mothers pulled them out of lunch boxes.  Uniroyal gave
up
and voluntarily stopped selling Alar in the U.S.

Now what is the story here?  Is it about an innocent chemical, falsely
accused,
or about a government agency failing to protect public health?  Is it about an
essential technology to make a healthful product or a marginal technology that
convenienced producers but endangered consumers?  Is it about the
exaggerations
of environmentalists or of media?

Of course you don't get to decide what the story is.  Millions of dollars have
already been spent to perpetuate the legend of the Great Overblown Alar Scare.

(If you want sources for the Alar story, I recommend a carefully footnoted
newsletter called "Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly" put out by the
Environmental Research Foundation, PO Box 5036, Annapolis MD; Paul and Anne
Ehrlich's, Betrayal of Science and Reason, Island Press, 1996; and a detailed
account of the science behind the NRDC study, Our Children's Toxic Legacy, by
John Wargo, Yale University Press, 1996.)

(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College.)

Tudom, hogy ez nem egeszsegugyi forum. Megis el kell mondanom 
ujabb hallaszavaraimat. Nem hallom jol, ki beszel es mit beszel. 
Egyszer ugy hallom, hogy IZ (ez nem a TIPP igekotokkel 
univerzalisan hasznalhato szavairol folyo vita, hogy kiizel, megizel 
stb.!) az mondja veszelyhelyzet van Gareban, igy tovabb nem mehet. 
Azutan itt a KORNYESZ-ben megtanultam, hogy nem szabad sok kis 
hulladekegetot epiteni (pl. Gareban sem!), inkabb meglevobe kell 
szallitani a hulladekot. Most olvasom az ujsagban, hogy IZ tiltakozik, 
mert Dorogon veszelyes, nem szabad elegetni a garei hulladekot. 
Persze azt is megtanultam, hogy megmondja, nagyon is megmondja, 
szakertoi szinten. Mas nem lehet, csak az hogy romlo hallasom miatt 
nem halottam, amikor szakertoi szinten megmondtak a megoldast. 
Mindig csak a nemet (gyk.: no, nyet) hallom, az igent nem. Es nem 
hallottam eddig azokat az igen logikus kerdeseket sem, amiket Urge 
Laci tett fel az elozo szamban. (Lehet, hogy neki is romlik a hallasa? 
Mert az ugye nem lehet, hogy beszelnek a vakvilagba, de a lenyeget 
elfelejtettek megkerdezni?) Sem a valaszokat. Csak zajt erzekelek.

Mas:
Mar megtanultam, hogy ronda technokratak csak a penzt nezik, a 
kornyezet nem szamit. Most hallom, hogy a technokratak kitalalnak 
egy kornyezetbarat (igaz kisse draga) kozlekedesi megoldast, erre a 
zold oldal mondja, hogy draga, inkabb zsufolodjunk a felszinen, de 
takaritsunk meg nehany milliardot. Ilyen nincs! Monjatok, hogy romlik 
a hallasom! Az meg mindig jobb, mint hulyenek erezni magam. Vagy 
szandekosan hulyitenek?

Segitsegetekre varva             Gacs Ivan

A Hungaropec Rt, a tervezett egetomu tulajdonosa keresere tovabbitom az Urge
Laci kerdeseire adott valaszaikat.

<1. Meg tudja-e valaki nekem mondani, hogy a tervezett egetomuvet az ott
<felhalmozott hulladek elegetese utan mely ipari egysegek tudnak ellatni
<hulladekkal.

A cegek onbevallasa szerint Baranyaban 22.000 t/ev, ebbol Pecsett 17.500
t/ev egetheto veszelyes hulladek keletkezik! A cegek listaja termeszetesen
uzleti titok, de a lista osszeallitasat a Del-dunantuli Kornyezetvedelmi
Felugyeloseg ellenorizte illetve iranyitotta. 

<2. A jelenlegi hulladekegeto kapacitas Magyarorszagon elegseges-e a sajat
<hulladekunk elegetesere?

Nem!

<3. Ha megis megepul az egeto, es az orszag nem tudja ellatni hulladekkal,
<akkor a  folyamatos kihasznaltsag erdekeben terveztek-e veszelyes
<hulladek behozatalat?

Nem terveztek.

Pasztor Zs.

Sziasztok!

Egy tagtarsunk szeretne Voros Konyvet v s rolni, de konyvesboltokban eddig 
nem tal lt. Ha #004#valaki valahol l tja a konyvet, h!vja, #002#rtes!tse
Gyuris Tam st:

c!m: Szeri Cs rda, `pusztszer, 5rp dliget 111.
tel/fax: 62/375-165

K#020#szi!

Fidusz